podesta_email_01695.txt

podesta-emails 12,124 words email

P17 P22 V11 D6 P21

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Friday February 20, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Bloomberg: “Hillary Clinton to Headline United Nations Women's Conference” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/hillary-clinton-to-headline-united-nations-women-s-conference>* “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will address a major United Nations gathering on women’s rights next month, just as the Clinton Foundation releases a major report on women and girls more than a year in the making.” *The Atlantic: “Boomer Grannies: Soccer Moms 2.0” <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/boomer-grannies-the-new-soccer-moms/385662/>* “What Clinton’s tweet actually showed was the power of grandmothers as an American voting bloc—a fact that might not come as a surprise to anyone who’s taken an Intro to Government class.” *Bloomberg: “Missouri's Senate Race, and the (Possible) Return of the Clinton Coattails” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/missouri-s-senate-race-and-the-possible-return-of-the-clinton-coattails>* “What could make Kander seek higher office in a state that rejected the Obama-Biden ticket by 9.5 points in 2012? This is easy: the next Democratic ticket is likely to be led by Hillary Clinton.” *New York Times blog: The Upshot: “Hillary Clinton and Inevitability: This Time Is Different” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?abt=0002&abg=0>* “If a candidate has ever been inevitable — for the nomination — it is Mrs. Clinton today.” *Washington Post blog: Erik Wemple: “Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines praises on-the-record communications” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/02/19/clinton-aide-philippe-reines-praises-on-the-record-communications/>* “Below is Reines unabridged, the way he should be. In #1, he answers the question about alleged inaccuracies in the media about Clintonworld; in #2, he riffs about his historical relationship with sourcing bases.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “The GOP’s dilemma with Hillary Clinton: What to attack?” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/19/the-gops-dilemma-with-hillary-clinton-what-to-attack/>* “Their goal is do to something Republicans have never done before: Defeat the Clintons, once and for all. But that massive opposition file also begs a question Republicans in all these years haven't been able to answer: Which Hillary to run against?” *Boston Herald: “Elizabeth Warren keeps silence on Hill: ‘Way too early’” <http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/02/elizabeth_warren_keeps_silence_on_hill_way_too_early>* “‘She hasn’t declared!’ Warren said after a series of events in western Massachusetts. Pressed if she’d support Clinton if and when she does launch a White House campaign, Warren continued playing hard to get.” *Fox News: “Clinton-tied firm accused of illegal 'scheme' to boost Dem groups, candidates” <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/20/complaint-democrats-skirting-fec-laws-with-private-company/>* “The charges were detailed in a new complaint filed by the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative watchdog group, on Wednesday. They implicate Catalist, LLC., a for-profit company that has provided customized voter data to hundreds of labor unions, Democratic committees and candidates -- including the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns in 2008.” *Politico: “DNC members unfazed by Hillary Clinton stories” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dnc-2016-115342.html>* [Subtitle:] “Negative headlines for Hillary Clinton have come fast and furious, but most Democrats are unconcerned.” *Wall Street Journal: “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002>* "Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merrill, says: 'She did the job that every secretary of state is supposed to do and what the American people expect of them—especially during difficult economic times. She proudly and loudly advocated on behalf of American business and took every opportunity she could to promote U.S. commercial interests abroad.'" *New York Times editorial: “Separate Philanthropy From Political Clout” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinion/hillary-clinton-should-ban-foreign-donors-to-the-clinton-global-initiative.html>* [Subtitle:] “Hillary Clinton Should Ban Foreign Donors to the Clinton Global Initiative” *Wall Street Journal opinion: Kimberly Strassel, member of the WSJ editorial board: “The Clinton Foundation Super PAC” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-the-clinton-foundation-super-pac-1424391547>* [Subtitle:] “It’s past time to drop the fiction that the Clinton Foundation is a charity.” *Articles:* *Bloomberg: “Hillary Clinton to Headline United Nations Women's Conference” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/hillary-clinton-to-headline-united-nations-women-s-conference>* By Jennifer Epstein February 19, 2015, 4:41 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] A month of women-centric events begins next week. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will address a major United Nations gathering on women’s rights next month, just as the Clinton Foundation releases a major report on women and girls more than a year in the making. Clinton is scheduled to be the keynote speaker on March 10 at the Women’s Empowerment Principles gathering in New York. The gathering will mark the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, which came out of a major UN conference on women’s issues. Clinton “will reflect on progress made in implementing the agenda set in Beijing two decades ago” and share findings from the foundation's "No Ceilings: The Full Participation Report," WEP said. She will also “outline an agenda to accelerate the full participation of women and girls around the world.” The report’s release, set for March 9, and the speech will come in the midst of a month of women-centric events for Clinton. On Tuesday, she's headed to the Lead On Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, where she will be interviewed by technology journalist Kara Swisher. On March 3, she will be honored at EMILY’s List’s 30th anniversary gala and given the We Are EMILY Award, which is given to “extraordinary women who have made a significant impact on our nation through their consistent leadership and inspiration” to the group. Clinton is also set to keynote the March 23 awards ceremony for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting, given in memory of the late New York Times political reporter Robin Toner. Neither the Clinton Foundation, which has hosted the "No Ceilings" project, nor Clinton's spokesman responded to requests for comment. *The Atlantic: “Boomer Grannies: Soccer Moms 2.0” <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/boomer-grannies-the-new-soccer-moms/385662/>* By Tanya Basu February 19, 2015, 3:13 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] They were instrumental in determining elections during the 90s—and will play a key role in 2016. Hillary Clinton simply meant to respond to anti-vaxers when she wrote the following tweet. *Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork <https://twitter.com/hashtag/vaccineswork?src=hash>. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest <https://twitter.com/hashtag/GrandmothersKnowBest?src=hash> [2/2/15, 10:45 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/562456798020386816>] The reaction was instantaneous. #GrandmothersKnowBest became a trending hashtag, drawing cheers and sneers, leaving pundits to wonder if it was indicative of a larger strategy in the much-rumored Clinton campaign to distract from her age as a potential flaw and, instead, deploy it as a strength. What Clinton’s tweet actually showed was the power of grandmothers as an American voting bloc—a fact that might not come as a surprise to anyone who’s taken an Intro to Government class. After all, the senior-citizen segment of the population reliably goes to the polls come rain or shine, and is heavily invested in the outcome of elections. But unlike Hillary, the average first-time grandmother isn’t yet a senior citizen. Clinton, at 67, is far older than most first-time grandmothers in the United States, whose average age hovers around 50. These grandmothers aren’t driven by Social Security, Medicare, or other issues of concern to voters over the age of 65. Say hello to the Boomer Grannies. These grandmothers are, as the name suggests, baby boomers, part of a generation that was born between mid-1946 and mid-1964. The oldest boomers turn 70 next year, but the majority of boomers aren’t going to be eligible for retirement benefits until closer to 2030. Within this population of middle-aged boomers, women outnumber men. Boomer Grannies transformed gender norms—by being the first in their families to get bachelor’s degrees, earning the majority of college degrees in their generation; working outside the home; raising children, often singlehandedly; and revolutionizing the concepts of modern motherhood and feminism. This generation of grandmas is more hip than the crocheting, bingo-playing, anti-technology stereotype would suggest. They’re too young—and perhaps, too cynical—to rely on classic social-welfare programs that drive the older vote, but they are nevertheless invested in issues affecting their children and grandchildren. It makes a certain amount of sense that the soccer moms of yore are making a reappearance as a key voting bloc. Boomer Grannies are more world-weary than gracious, more educated than docile; their concern for posterity extends beyond the traditional “maternal” interests of education and healthcare. Today, these grandmas are just as interested in the implications of foreign-conflict intervention and tax reform as they are in paid leave and anti-poverty initiatives. Clinton’s status as a frontrunner in the potential Democratic Presidential field has excited this very demographic, to her advantage. After all, these aging soccer moms are comfortable with a Clinton in the White House. Boomer Grannies greet the former Secretary of State like a rockstar, and often convey that somehow, Clinton “gets” them. Part of this cohort’s grandmotherly concern for posterity may have to do with its shared experience of parenthood itself, says Laurel Elder, a professor of political science at Hartwick College who, along with Steven Greene at North Carolina State University, has published the only study of how being a mom affects choices at the ballot box. “We’ve found very consistent motherhood effects,” she told me. “Even when you’re controlling for other variables, motherhood predicts more liberal attitudes. Being a mom makes you more supportive on government spending on education and daycare and on a whole range of social-welfare issues: spending on the elderly, spending on the poor, overall government services.” But do these effects continue when the kids those moms raised leave the house? That’s a complicated and under-explored question. Elder said that “even mothers of grown children are more liberal.” Members of this younger generation of grandmothers are still concerned about posterity, but are also committed to advancing their own interests, prioritizing women’s workplace issues like equal pay and paid leave. In general, parents skew conservative on both social and fiscal issues as they age. But this generation of grandparents has experienced a crushing recession that has affected both them and their children, and might retain its liberal tilt longer. That would impact the presidential race. Surprisingly little attention has been devoted to the political power of Boomer Grannies, and perhaps it’s because they are often clumped together with senior citizens. But the age structure of this country is changing rapidly—the average age of first-time mothers has crept up to about 27. While women of all ages may provide a huge advantage to Clinton, should she run for the White House, it's the women sharing Clinton's grandma experience that offer significant, tantalizing voting power. Complicating the story of Boomer Grannies is the aftermath of the recession. Many grown children are returning home and relying on these grandmothers for financial and emotional support as they navigate a changed working world. One in 10 American children is living with a grandparent, with a third of those kids counting their grandparents as their primary caretakers. Poverty is often an issue in households headed by grandmas. Young adults living at home for longer are changing not only family dynamics and household finances, but also the standard model of the nuclear family. To be sure, having a grown child doesn’t necessarily mean that a middle-aged mother is a grandparent. But the liberal tilt of the soccer mom generation that put Bill Clinton into the White House during the 90s brings up a pertinent question for Republicans: Does the GOP have any prospect of capturing this slice of America? National Journal’s Next America series found that the traditional Republican strongholds of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico are weakening. Romney gave up on New Mexico in 2012, despite the state having a Republican governor. Analysts point to the increasing Hispanic populations in this trio of Southwestern states, contending for power with older, white voters. Hispanic voters are increasingly vocal in politics, and tend to disagree with older voters when it comes to immigration policy, welfare programs, and economics—a phenomenon that has become known as the “brown vs. gray.” Increasing diversity, however, may not help the Democrats as much as they hope: A report from the Census Bureau notes that “The race and ethnic composition of the baby boom population reflects the composition of the U.S. population during the mid-twentieth century—the years when these cohorts were born.” American baby boomers are overwhelmingly white, with 72 percent of the population identifying as non-Hispanic White. With baby boomers becoming a more female dominated group as the years pass by, that means the exact type of voter that will become crucial come 2016 is a white, educated, working, middle-aged woman. That doesn’t mean candidates should simply forget about black, Asian, and Hispanic middle-aged women—doing so would be a strategic error. But the more diverse young voters in these states are less likely to turn out for elections, making it possible that older white voters may still secure these states for Republicans come 2016. Boomer Grannies, on the cusp of becoming senior citizens, are confronting a fragile future with a hazy forecast on Social Security: President Barack Obama’s administration has taken the stance of many Democrats in shifting Social Security’s trust funds to avoid slashes in disability payments, but Republicans have characterized this as “kicking the can down the road,” urging Democrats to consider a more immediate solution for baby boomers now verging on retirement. The recession has significantly altered the working lives of Boomer Grannies, who have often turned out to be the sole breadwinners for their families as they struggle to pay bills. Obama’s State of the Union speech devoted a significant amount of time to the plight of the American working woman, but the method of doing so by raising taxes irked Republicans, who saw this as an unnecessary step and potentially harmful to the country’s cautious economic improvement. These rifts in policy are promising for a party that has struggled to capture the votes of older women. Republicans saw a glimmer of hope in the last presidential election, when Obama did shockingly poorly among college-educated white women, a surprising fact given that both college-educated voters and women tend to favor Democrats. Early polls from a set of Quinnipiac surveys indicate that Clinton enjoys overwhelming support among college-educated white women. But she cannot take much comfort in that lead. “In 2012, Obama lost ground with them, falling back to 46 percent nationally, the weakest performance for any Democratic nominee since Michael Dukakis in 1988,” wrote Ronald Brownstein in National Journal. Even the subset of Boomer Grannies who identify as Democrats may split. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who most recently denied any interest in running for President, maintains strong support among this very demographic. Warren’s experiences as a baby-boomer mother who has fought financial institutions and Congress in the name of working women means she will have strong support among Boomer Grannies, no matter how many times she says she's not running. And to Warren’s advantage? She’s a grandma, too. So did Hillary Clinton simply stumble on a demographic that she is uniquely poised to attract? Or does she have a team of strategic consultants who have taken her time on the campaign trail in 2008 to heart and combined with the big data-targeted, get-out-the-vote aggression of Barack Obama? It’s probably a mix of both. If the Boomer Granny postulate proves anything, it’s this: Whoever runs for president from either party will need to reach out not just to middle America and undecided voters, but also to the middle-aged women formerly known as soccer moms. *Bloomberg: “Missouri's Senate Race, and the (Possible) Return of the Clinton Coattails” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/missouri-s-senate-race-and-the-possible-return-of-the-clinton-coattails>* By David Weigel February 19, 2015, 2:30 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Why Democrats scored a Senate candidate in a red state. Jason Kander, Missouri's 33-year old secretary of state, has given Democrats that rarest of post-2014 feelings: Enthusiasm about a red state race. He's running for U.S. Senate against first-term Senator Roy Blunt, a Republican who left a safe House seat to win office in the 2010 Tea Party wave. (He defeated the previous Democratic secretary of state, Robin Carnahan.) "Barely halfway through his first term as secretary of state and Democrat Jason Kander is already bored with his job," thundered the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which in 2012 supported Ohio's 35-year-old Josh Mandel, and in 2014 supported Arkansas's 35-year-old Tom Cotton. What could make Kander seek higher office in a state that rejected the Obama-Biden ticket by 9.5 points in 2012? This is easy: the next Democratic ticket is likely to be led by Hillary Clinton. Kander's move should be seen as the latest burst of red state Democratic enthusiasm about the return of the Clintons. In the large swath of red America where white voters preferred Clinton to Obama in 2008, many Democrats see the Clinton restoration as the removal of a heavy anchor. Bill Clinton twice won Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Kentucky–all states lost by Obama. Even if Hillary Clinton can't repeat that, Democrats hope her brand will alienate fewer voters than the toxic Obama brand. "It's much easier to convince people to run," said Kentucky Speaker of the House Greg Stumbo, a Democrat whose colleagues held on to control in the rough 2014 elections even as Senator Mitch McConnell was winning a landslide re-election. "Even some of the ones that were talking about retiring–they're kind of giddy. They were tired of getting beat up in some of these races." In 2008, Clinton absolutely pulverized Obama in Kentucky's late primary, taking 66 percent of the vote even after the Illinois Democrat was clearly about to secure the nomination. Obama actually defeated Clinton in Missouri (helped by the early and aggressive support of Senator Claire McCaskill), but he did so by taking only six of the state's 114 counties. Since then, Missouri Democrats had two rough midterms and a 2012 saved by the black swan gaffe-ability of the Republicans' Senate candidate, Todd Akin. Kander, like Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Koster, is looking for a way for a post-Obama Democratic Party to rebuild as much of the old Clinton coalition as voters allow. *New York Times blog: The Upshot: “Hillary Clinton and Inevitability: This Time Is Different” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?abt=0002&abg=0>* By Nate Cohn February 19, 2015 Whenever I mention that Hillary Clinton is an overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination — and would be even if Senator Elizabeth Warren ran — the conversation usually comes back to 2008. “She was supposed to be inevitable last time,” the refrain goes, “and she lost.” I get it. I remember that Mrs. Clinton was “inevitable,” and I see why today’s discussions of Mrs. Clinton’s strength sound familiar. But there is no equivalence between Mrs. Clinton’s strength then and now. She was never inevitable eight years ago. If a candidate has ever been inevitable — for the nomination — it is Mrs. Clinton today. She was certainly a strong candidate in 2008. But by this time in that cycle, it was already clear that she would not cruise to the nomination. Yes, she held an impressive 40 percent or so of the Democratic vote in national polls, leading Senator Barack Obama by 15 points. That, however, is not inevitability. Candidates with a case for inevitability — the ones who started as big favorites and won the nomination without a long fight, like Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996 — all held at least 50 percent of the vote in early polls, and led their opposition by enormous margins. The record of candidates with similar standing to Mrs. Clinton, like Gerald Ford in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980, is not at all perfect. Kennedy lost, and Ford faced a protracted contest. Flash-forward to 2015. No candidate, excluding incumbent presidents, has ever fared so well in the early primary polls as Mrs. Clinton. She holds about 60 percent of the vote of Democratic voters, a tally dwarfing the 40 percent she held this time in the last election cycle. If anything, in the 2008 cycle the national polls overstated Mrs. Clinton’s strength. She trailed in Iowa polls from the very start. She led in New Hampshire and South Carolina only by single digits, making it easy to imagine how the winner of Iowa could gain momentum and go on to defeat her in following contests. Her vulnerabilities were obvious. Her vote to authorize the war in Iraq was a serious liability; so were reservations about another Clinton in the White House. Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Gore or Mr. Dole, Mrs. Clinton faced two top-tier challengers, the former vice-presidential nominee John Edwards and Mr. Obama, a rising star thanks in part to his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Mr. Obama had already declared his candidacy by this time in 2007. He had surged to 25 percent in the polls. Enthusiastic crowds showed up to early rallies in Austin, Tex., and Oakland, Calif. He matched Mrs. Clinton in fund-raising in the first quarter, demonstrating strong support in the so-called invisible primary — the behind-the-scenes competition for the resources and credibility necessary to win the nomination. She was also running against a bevy of competent, second-tier candidates like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and the current vice president, Joe Biden, then a Delaware senator. The decision of these candidates to run was a telling indication that they considered Mrs. Clinton to be far more vulnerable than the inevitability narrative suggested. This analysis is not just based on the benefit of hindsight. The betting markets concurred at the time, with Intrade giving Mrs. Clinton just a 49 percent chance of winning the nomination on Feb. 14, 2007. Mr. Obama had a 20 percent chance of winning the nomination, according to Intrade, or about the same as Jeb Bush today. Writing for the Week in Review section of The New York Times in April 2007, Adam Nagourney argued that “any hope she had of Democrats embracing her candidacy as inevitable has been dashed” by the strength of Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, and “obvious discomfort in some Democratic quarters of putting another Clinton in the White House.” Eight years later, though, it’s clear that it’s still possible for a candidate to approach inevitability, and it is Mrs. Clinton who, in a twist, deserves the distinction. Her nearest historical rival, Al Gore in 2000, was a sitting vice president serving under a popular incumbent in a booming economy. Mrs. Clinton’s lead comes despite the fact that the sitting vice president is one of the potential candidates who is included in the polls. She leads the person in second place in those polls, Ms. Warren, by more than 40 points, not 15 points. Just as important, her leads in the early states, like Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, are similar in size. Even as Mrs. Clinton enters the season in a far better position than eight years ago, her potential opposition is weaker as well. So far, it’s basically nonexistent: Not a single sitting senator, governor or vice president has decided to run. Mr. Biden has made noises about running, but he has no obvious base of support among Democratic donors or voters. The fact that Mrs. Clinton seems poised to clear the field is the surest evidence that 2016 is not 2008. It means that Ms. Warren is getting a very different message from the one Mr. Obama received when Senator Harry Reid reportedly urged him to seek the presidency. Instead, many of the first people to endorse Mr. Obama in 2008, like Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, have already endorsed Mrs. Clinton. Even if Ms. Warren did run, it is hard to argue that she is as strong as Mr. Obama was eight years ago. Not only is it a stretch to compare the enthusiasm for Ms. Warren to that for Mr. Obama, but the differences between her and Mrs. Clinton on inequality and finance are also less clear — and probably less salient — than Mrs. Clinton’s vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Ms. Warren won’t replicate Mr. Obama’s support among black voters, either, and it is hard to see how she would make up for it. Perhaps, then, the easiest way to think about Mrs. Clinton’s strength is simply to remember just how close she came to victory in 2008. Despite her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, despite the strength of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, despite a four-to-one disadvantage among black voters, and despite all the miscues of her campaign, Mrs. Clinton still won 48 percent of pledged delegates. Without these powerful forces working against her, she appears to be far better positioned than she was eight years ago. If she barely lost then, why would she lose now? *Washington Post blog: Erik Wemple: “Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines praises on-the-record communications” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/02/19/clinton-aide-philippe-reines-praises-on-the-record-communications/>* By Erik Wemple February 19, 2015, 6:58 p.m. EST Philippe Reines is a long, longtime media aide to Hillary Clinton. He’s known for a number of things, including some amazing sound bites: “Is it possible to be quoted yawning?” for instance. And as noted in a Washington Post profile, he developed an “addiction to background dish,” which is to say he’d plant nameless quotes with material-hungry reporters, the better to help his boss and hinder her detractors. In an October 2006 column, the New York Times’s Maureen Dowd quoted a Clinton “adviser” as saying that Sen. John McCain looked “similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi where he recited the names of his crew mates.” It later came out that the “adviser” was Reines. Many years later, Reines is on the record praising on-the-record journalism. In a piece written by Emily Schultheis for the National Journal, Reines laments that anonymous individuals claiming to possess knowledge about Clinton’s presidential plans and ambitions are sending incorrect information into the public realm via all-too-willing reporters. The key passage: “Asked how the campaign could get a handle on all the anonymous outside chatter, Reines placed much of the blame on the media for being willing to grant anonymity to sources who don’t know what they’re talking about. Unless the unnamed ‘advisers’ stop talking to reporters, or reporters stop quoting them, Reines added, there’s no way to get the issue under control. “‘What gets lost is, there are no consequences for [the source or the media] when they’re wrong—there just aren’t,’ he said. ‘If you were to go back and look at the last three, four, five, six months of coverage about Secretary Clinton, you’re going to see certain reporters who cover her closely whose accuracy rate is less than 50-50.’” So who are these reporters? Where are the innaccuracies? Reached on that matter, Reines wrote the Erik Wemple Blog via e-mail: “[Y]ou don’t need me, you only need The Google to determine what has been introduced into the public domain that has proven to be on the money and what has been off by a mile. Because if I do it, it gets dumbed down to ‘Hating the Media’ — as opposed to hating bogus information.” Challenge accepted: The Erik Wemple Blog will bang on Google tonight in search of erroneous Clinton coverage. Now to the question of Reines passing judgement on anonymous sourcing. Here, Reines provides a spirited and even logical defense of his position. There’s a difference, he argues, between anonymous quotes from people who don’t know what they’re talking about and anonymous quotes from people who do know what they’re talking about. “[W]hat the National Journal story was specifically looking at was sources, identified in a manner implying they know their a%@ from their elbow, spewing nonsense — all in between quotation marks. That practice lends a great deal of legitimacy to the information and sentiment presented.” That circumstance, argues Reines, differs from past situations in which he himself just might have issued comments on background or off-record: “And when I spoke to you or anyone else — on any basis — I’m guessing you didn’t question or doubt that I was in fact a duly authorized spokesman paid to speak to the media. That’s the fundamental difference. You wanted me on the record because it’s always better and sexier for a reporter to have a name attached to something — especially if the name is legit. But that’s a different animal and not what the story was addressing.” Reines seemed quite pleased with the National Journal piece. As for Reines’s own leanings these days, they tend toward transparency. When asked whether he’d moved to a more consistent on-the-record platform, Reines replied, “[Y]es, while I am no longer in daily contact with reporters — for their well being as much as mine since from everything I read I am an unhelpful & profane meanie — when I rarely do I try to be on the record as much as possible. Mostly because it’s a forcing mechanism to abide by the rule that if you don’t have anything nice to say about someone, don’t say anything. But it’s an easy goal to adhere to when you barely take press calls.” Schultheis declined to comment on whether Reines went off-record in their conversations. The glory of Reines’s comments in National Journal is seeing an operative going on the record to criticize allies who feel close to his boss in all likelihood because of the political acumen of his boss: That is, some of the Clinton “allies” quoted in stories these days ID themselves as such because the Clintons make them feel that way. Reines, again, has quite a response: “There are a dozen reasons to explain the problem that don’t equate to the source or the reporter being bad actors. But in the case you’re describing below, the implication is that they are in regular contact as a basis for their knowledge. So why would you identify someone as an advisor or something equivalent that implies regular and direct contact and participation when that’s not the truth? People aren’t identified as ‘Spoke recently to X after seeing them for the first time in a year at a book party they both attended.’ They are identified as friends or insiders. ‘Friend’ ‘supporter’ ‘close to’ and ‘ally’ are especially silly. By implication they are NOT an advisor or in the know, or you’d call them an advisor! Yet their information is presented as gospel.” Below is Reines unabridged, the way he should be. In #1, he answers the question about alleged inaccuracies in the media about Clintonworld; in #2, he riffs about his historical relationship with sourcing bases: “On #1, you don’t need me, you only need The Google to determine what has been introduced into the public domain that has proven to be on the money and what has been off by a mile. Because if I do it, it gets dumbed down to ‘Hating the Media’ — as opposed to hating bogus information. Two very different things. It should be ok to not be a fan of bad and misleading information. And reporters (and their editors and publishers) should hate inaccuracy as much as we do. But somehow hating inaccuracy has become synonymous with hating the media. “On #2, the story wasn’t about the general propriety or usefulness of OTR or background conversations. It was about sources being portrayed as being something they are not, and the resulting inaccuracy of their information. And not the moments of being off the record since strictly speaking, if a source wants to be completely off the record, that’s between them the reporter and the almighty since by the book what’s said can’t used. So what the National Journal story was specifically looking at was sources, identified in a manner implying they know their a%@ from their elbow, spewing nonsense — all in between quotation marks. That practice lends a great deal of legitimacy to the information and sentiment presented. In those cases — where a source’s standing is in question but they won’t allow their name to be attached to their comments — it’s the reporter who is being put at risk, not the source. And to be more cynical, I bet there are instances where the reporter knows full well that using the name wouldn’t exactly wow anyone or convey credibility and is more than happy sticking with anonymity. For as long as there are no consequences to either source or reporter, this will continue. Why there are no consequences to the reporter is hard to understand. If a reporter had a two-a-day correction rate, they’d probably get a talking to. But relying on bad sourcing five-times-a-week that is immediately or quickly exposed as clearly being bad? You’re the media expert, you tell me how often people have been admonished as a result. To the reader, there’s zero evidence that happens. And if it happens, doesn’t the reader deserve to know the same way they do if a noun was misspelled? Arguably nitpicky mistakes are far less reflective of someone’s overall credibility and more a reflection of spellcheck “And when I spoke to you or anyone else — on any basis — I’m guessing you didn’t question or doubt that I was in fact a duly authorized spokesman paid to speak to the media. That’s the fundamental difference. You wanted me on the record because it’s always better and sexier for a reporter to have a name attached to something — especially if the name is legit. But that’s a different animal and not what the story was addressing. Besides, at the end of most interactions with you, you had something on the record from me encapsulating our larger conversation. Obviously you agree there are times it is acceptable practice to speak on a basis other than on the record or you wouldn’t agree to doing so what I’m guessing is five times a day. People also need to remember that a reason for not being 100% on the record is because the reporter is only going use 1% due to space constraints. Which puts a lot of pressure on the speaker to make sure the point they are trying to make gets across, rather than some errant clause or snarky comment – which by the way reporters make too but don’t have to read in print. It’s only human. If reporters offered to use 100% of our comments on the record and include a transcript of the conversation — both sides, I bet spokespeople would take that offer more often than not. Definitely more often than you think. And I bet far more often than reporters would want to see their half of the conversation transcribed and in print. But that’s not the case. A conversation that is 100% on the record means you at most see 50% of the exchange. You don’t know what triggered the 1%, there might not be adequate context. So it’s not like a subject being 100% on the record provides 100% context and transparency to the reader. “So you shouldn’t conflate your wanting to have a conversation that’s 100% on the record with everyone you speak to with this National Journal story. It’s authorized apples vs misleading oranges. “And yes, while I am no longer in daily contact with reporters — for their well being as much as mine since from everything I read I am an unhelpful & profane meanie— when I rarely do I try to be on the record as much as possible. Mostly because it’s a forcing mechanism to abide by the rule that if you don’t have anything nice to say about someone, don’t say anything. But it’s an easy goal to adhere to when you barely take press calls. “With that I am going to conclude my Norma Rae like call to action on the factory floor and return to quarantine.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “The GOP’s dilemma with Hillary Clinton: What to attack?” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/19/the-gops-dilemma-with-hillary-clinton-what-to-attack/>* By Nia-Malika Henderson February 19, 2015, 4:15 p.m. EST Hillary Rodham Clinton's nearly quarter-century span on the national political scene is an opposition researcher's dream. And the "Hillary Haters," as Hanna Rosin calls them in her Atlantic piece, are already busy and are more well-funded than ever. Their goal is do to something Republicans have never done before: Defeat the Clintons, once and for all. But that massive opposition file also begs a question Republicans in all these years haven't been able to answer: Which Hillary to run against? There are so many to choose from, with gender roles and expectations undergirding each one. There is first lady Clinton, with a scandal always around the corner (Vince Foster, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and more). How about carpet-bagging Senator Clinton? Also, presidential candidate Clinton, the one that "misspoke" about arriving under sniper fire in Bosnia and lost the primary? And/or Secretary of State Clinton -- as in Benghazi, Benghazi and more Benghazi? There's also Alinsky Clinton and Arkansas Clinton. Oh, and scorned-but-scheming wife Clinton. There are so many versions that it's hard to keep track. But the damning through-line is missing -- or, at least, not yet evident. There's no Swift Boat or "47 percent" hook just yet, despite all that material. The most recent attempt is to make Clinton into some version of Romney -- an opportunistic plutocrat scoring huge sums of money for just standing up and saying words to the ultimate benefit of the morass that is the Clinton Foundation and her own political career. But even that has problems. Rosin writes: “That said, if clumsily executed, the Hillary-as-plutocrat offense could easily summon a different set of stereotypes about how unseemly money and power look on a woman. The stories on America Rising’s Web site may stick to the facts, but much of the accompanying art is in the realm of tabloid cheap shot. When photos of Clinton appear on the group’s home page, she is almost always wearing one of a few unflattering expressions: chin up haughtily, angry and finger-pointing, bored and contemptuous, or laughing with her mouth wide open. In one photo, accompanying the aggregated story about billing taxpayers for her book tour, she seems to be rubbing her hands together as she leaves the stage.” Running successfully against Clinton means taking her strength and turning it into a weakness. In 2008, she ran as the most experienced candidate, betting that the Clinton brand was a good one. The Obama campaign punctured the experience argument and made the Clinton brand seem stale using the Iraq war. And they both canceled out the historic-first-xxxxxx president argument. And it's this argument that could be one of Clinton's strengths this time. The woman factor even blunts the age factor; a CNN poll this week showed a surprising number of people think Clinton embodies the future -- more so than any of the other candidates, at least. Which is what makes finding that silver-bullet, focus-messaging campaign so hard for Republicans. As Rosin reports, consultants are busy at work trying to find the right mix, which might be somewhere between "too political" and "plutocrat." Yet being a too-political plutocrat could also be read by some as Clinton beating the boys at their own game. Strategists and consultants in the Clinton branding sweepstakes are particularly focused on white-collar white women, the very voters who would likely identify with Clinton in some ways and could turn out in higher numbers. Getting those women to see less of themselves in Clinton's run -- in one way or another -- will likely be key whatever they the opposition chooses to focus on. *Boston Herald: “Elizabeth Warren keeps silence on Hill: ‘Way too early’” <http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/02/elizabeth_warren_keeps_silence_on_hill_way_too_early>* By Matt Stout February 20, 2015 GREENFIELD — Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who huddled with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just weeks ago, repeatedly ducked questions about whether she’ll back the likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, telling a Herald reporter it’s “way too early.” “She hasn’t declared!” Warren said after a series of events in western Massachusetts. Pressed if she’d support Clinton if and when she does launch a White House campaign, Warren continued playing hard to get. “You’re way too early,” she said. “You’re way too early.” Warren, the de facto leader of the party’s liberal wing, has repeatedly ignored calls to launch her own campaign, and again yesterday twice repeated, “I’m not running for president.” She has instead continued slamming Wall Street and touting a populist message that has helped catapult her into the Democrats’ leadership team. “I want to make sure the progressive point of view is heard and fully understood and that people are ready to act on it,” Warren said at a Northampton fire house. “That’s my job.” Warren also discussed her private meeting in December with Clinton in Washington, D.C., characterizing it as a “policy discussion.” “And I’m never shy about my point of view on working families. Never,” Warren said of their talk. Clinton and Warren crossed paths at a Boston fundraiser for Democrat Martha Coakley last fall, where the former first lady had high praise for the Bay State senator, and even tried to out-populist her, saying, “Corporations don’t create jobs.” That comment, which echoed a similar one by Warren in 2011, drew immediate fire and Clinton ended up walking it back. Ready for Warren campaign manager Erica Sagrans kept up the drumbeat last night, issuing a statement saying: “Our message to Senator Warren is this: ‘When you’re ready to run, we’ll be ready to help you fight back. This movement is about more than getting others to believe in you. It’s about getting you to believe in us. Our future is too important to miss this moment — Senator Warren, this is your time.’” Democratic consultant Peter Fenn said Warren is wise to “keep her powder dry” and withhold her endorsement. “I don’t think she is playing it cute. I think she is playing smart,” Fenn said. “I think the more that she feels that she is having influence on the Clinton candidacy, the better it will be for the country. That is clearly her view.” Warren was greeted like a rock star during yesterday’s three-city swing. Roughly 150 people packed a Greenfield Community College library to hear her talk student loans, education and even fracking. Warren also told reporters she agrees “with the Anti-Defamation League” that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March address to Congress should be postponed, though she didn’t say whether she would attend. “What Speaker (John) Boehner did by trying to politicize (this) ... he has tried to turn our relationship with Israel into Republicans vs. Democrats,” Warren said, “and I don’t think that’s good for the United States, and certainly not good for Israel.” *Fox News: “Clinton-tied firm accused of illegal 'scheme' to boost Dem groups, candidates” <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/20/complaint-democrats-skirting-fec-laws-with-private-company/>* By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos February 20, 2015 A Democrat-aligned business founded by a longtime Clinton confidant is being accused of giving valuable voter lists to party committees and candidates, as part of a "scheme" that allegedly runs afoul of campaign finance law. The charges were detailed in a new complaint filed by the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative watchdog group, on Wednesday. They implicate Catalist, LLC., a for-profit company that has provided customized voter data to hundreds of labor unions, Democratic committees and candidates -- including the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns in 2008. The complaint, filed to the Federal Election Commission, accused the group of effectively masquerading as a corporation while acting like a political action committee -- in turn, skirting campaign finance laws that normally apply to PACs. “Fundamentally, I would call [Catalist] a scheme to avoid campaign finance law,” FACT director Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney, told FoxNews.com. The complaint accuses the group, whose investors include George Soros, of skirting laws that cover so-called “soft money” -- donations from corporations, unions, and individuals used to influence elections -- and coordination between independent groups like PACs and the parties and candidates they support. The complaint says “the commission should examine whether Catalist was established, and/or is financed, maintained or controlled, by the [Democratic National Committee], and is therefore” subject to campaign finance laws. Sitting atop Catalist is founder and president Harold Ickes, a stalwart aide and adviser to both former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton -- who is preparing for a likely presidential run in 2016. A member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules and bylaws committee, Ickes “has played an ongoing and significant role in the DNC and in Clinton presidential campaigns,” according to the complaint. Whitaker, in making the case that Catalist is not a corporation but in fact a political group subject to campaign finance law, said the organization is funded by and caters to donors and groups responsible for over $100 million in outside spending to elect Democrats. He said this makes the group an arm of the Democratic Party. Federal parties were completely banned from raising and spending "soft money" in 2004. PACs and other groups like 527s can still raise unlimited amounts of soft money, but they cannot coordinate directly with campaigns or political parties. Whitaker says as a “corporation,” Catalist investors and clients can engage in “seamless coordination” and other activities that PACs, 527s and parties cannot. In addition, wealthy donors like Soros, who has invested millions in Catalist since 2006, are not subject to FEC disclosure laws. The complaint also says the group sold voter lists at a discount, which would count as an in-kind contribution for a PAC. Requests to Catalist for comment were not returned. Groups like Catalist -- including from the conservative end of the spectrum -- have raised eyebrows before. Last fall, the American Democracy Legal Fund, a Democratic watchdog, filed a similar complaint against Data Trust, a private company launched to provide voter information between the Republican National Committee and outside groups. *Politico: “DNC members unfazed by Hillary Clinton stories” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dnc-2016-115342.html>* By Ben Schrecklinger February 20, 2015, 5:38 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] Negative headlines for Hillary Clinton have come fast and furious, but most Democrats are unconcerned. The negative headlines for Hillary Clinton have come fast and furious in recent weeks: Public in-fighting at her affiliated PACs. Trouble with fundraising targets. Donations from foreign governments. But count the most committed Democratic party officials as unperturbed by — and in many cases unaware of – the fallout. At the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting on Thursday, attendees unanimously expressed indifference to the spate of bad news. Instead, the only point of disagreement was whether a competitive presidential primary was desirable for the party, though attendees expressed confidence that Clinton would be prepared regardless, drawing on circus metaphors to describe the boisterous Republican field vying to take on the former secretary of state. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported on a fundraiser for pro-Clinton organizations that charges a commission, a controversial practice in politics. Last week, Clinton loyalist David Brock resigned from the board of Priorities USA, a pro-Clinton super PAC, saying its leaders had planted the Times story to undermine his pro-Clinton groups. Then, POLITICO reported that Priorities was having trouble meeting fundraising goals, in part because other Clinton groups were tapping out donors. Finally, this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation had ended its policy of declining to accept gifts from foreign governments, raising questions about the appearance of undue influence on Clinton. But the stories have apparently done little to penetrate Democratic leaders’ confidence. “Even among the group of people who are prone to anxiety attacks, I have not been getting phone calls,” said Roy Temple, chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party. “I pay a lot more attention to the fundamentals than I do to day-to-day dramas.” “Things that are happening today are going to have no impact in November 2016,” said Alan Clendenin, vice chair of the Florida Democratic Party, who sported a Clinton pin on his lapel. “We listen to that chatter, but we don’t necessarily let it drive the long-term decision-making,” said Jaxon Ravens, chair of the Washington Democratic Party. Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and vice chair of the DNC, said recent headlines are small potatoes compared to the controversies Clinton has ridden out in the past. “They’ve thrown everything and the kitchen sink at her in the last 20 years, and she has survived and thrived,” he said. Several attendees said any controversy about funding for the Clinton Foundation would be outweighed by the worked it conducted around the world. “It’s beloved,” Jaime Harrison, chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said of the foundation. But if Democrats are in agreement that Clinton hasn’t been dinged by the recent news stories, there isn’t consensus about how much the likely nominee should be tested by her own party between now and next July’s convention in Philadelphia. Many attendees painted the relative quiet on the Democratic side as a good thing, saying the crowded Republican field would draw the eventual GOP nominee far to the right and create an embarrassing sideshow. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz told assembled Democrats that she planned to watch the Republican debates while chowing down on popcorn. New Hampshire’s Buckley said he’d been enjoying enjoying the “epic clown car” of the GOP primary. Others spoke of a GOP “three-ring circus.” But some in the party want other Democrats to throw their hats in the ring — believing a competitive primary will better prepare Clinton for the general election. “I want an all-out battle all the way to June,” said Bob Mullholland, a Democratic committeeman from California with a “Ready for Hillary” pin on his lapel. Mullholland said that though he has already committed to Clinton, a competitive primary would energize the base, pull new voters into the Democratic fold, and give the party a chance to hone its message ahead of the general election. (California’s primary is currently set for June 7, 2016.) “I wish we would have some other candidates running,” said Cordelia Burks, vice chair of the Indiana Democratic Party, who said she plans to support Clinton when she runs. “I think it would give the nation the opportunity to have a debate.” Pennsylvania Democratic Party chairman Jim Burns, on the other hand, was less concerned about the opportunity for a debate. Though Burn conceded that “a competitive primary is a good thing,” he added that Clinton “does not need a primary.” “If Hillary chooses to do this, there would be little to no pushback,” he said. “She’s so far ahead of any possible challenger.” Stanley Grossman, a Democrats Abroad leader who lives in London, also dismissed the benefits of competition. “I think what we need is absolute unity,” he said. *Wall Street Journal: “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002>* By James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus February 19, 2015, 10:30 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Family charities collected donations from companies she promoted as secretary of state Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co. , Exxon Mobil Corp. , Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co. At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures. As Mrs. Clinton prepares to embark on a race for the presidency, she has a web of connections to big corporations unique in American politics—ties forged both as secretary of state and by her family’s charitable interests. Those relationships are emerging as an issue for Mrs. Clinton’s expected presidential campaign as income disparity and other populist themes gain early attention. Indeed, Clinton Foundation money-raising already is drawing attention. “To a lot of progressive Democrats, Clinton’s ties to corporate America are disturbing,” says Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College who once worked for congressional Republicans. Mrs. Clinton’s connections to companies, he says, “are a bonanza for opposition researchers because they enable her critics to suggest the appearance of a conflict of interest.” The Wall Street Journal identified the companies involved with both Clinton-family charitable endeavors and with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department by examining large corporate donations to the Clinton Foundation, then reviewing lobbying-disclosure reports filed by those companies. At least 44 of those 60 companies also participated in philanthropic projects valued at $3.2 billion that were set up though a wing of the foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative, which coordinates the projects but receives no cash for them. Mrs. Clinton’s connections to the companies don’t end there. As secretary of state, she created 15 public-private partnerships coordinated by the State Department, and at least 25 companies contributed to those partnerships. She also sought corporate donations for another charity she co-founded, a nonprofit women’s group called Vital Voices. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merrill, says: “She did the job that every secretary of state is supposed to do and what the American people expect of them—especially during difficult economic times. She proudly and loudly advocated on behalf of American business and took every opportunity she could to promote U.S. commercial interests abroad.” Corporate donations to politically connected charities aren’t illegal so long as they aren’t in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation. In some cases, donations came after Mrs. Clinton took action that helped a company. In other cases, the donation came first. In some instances, donations came both before and after. All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. President Barack Obama ’s transition team worried enough about potential problems stemming from Clinton-organization fundraising while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state that it asked Mr. Clinton to quit raising money from foreign governments for the Clinton Global Initiative and to seek approval for paid speaking engagements, which he did. The transition team didn’t put limits on corporate fundraising. The foundation resumed soliciting foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton left the State Department. The official name of the foundation was changed to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Mrs. Clinton became a director. All told, the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates have collected donations and pledges from all sources of more than $1.6 billion, according to their tax returns. On Thursday, the foundation said that if Mrs. Clinton runs for president, it would consider whether to continue accepting foreign-government contributions as part of an internal policy review. “The Clinton Foundation has raised hundreds of millions that it claims is for charitable causes, but clearly overlaps with Hillary Clinton’s political ambitions,” said Tim Miller, director of America Rising PAC, a conservative group that has targeted Mrs. Clinton. Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian says the group’s work helps millions around the world and its donors have a history of supporting such work. “So when companies get involved with the Clinton Foundation it’s for only one reason, because they know our work matters,” he says. In her book, “Hard Choices,” Mrs. Clinton said one of her goals at the State Department was “placing economics at the heart of our foreign policy.” She wrote: “It was clearer than ever that America’s economic strength and our global leadership were a package deal.” Matthew Goodman, a former Clinton State Department official who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says Mrs. Clinton is the first secretary of state to make economics such a focus since George C. Marshall, who helped rebuild postwar Europe. *Economic Statecraft* That approach, which Mrs. Clinton called “economic statecraft,” emerged in discussions with Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. investment banker who has worked in Democratic and Republican administrations and became an undersecretary of state. “One of the very first items was, how do we strengthen the role of the State Department in economic policy?” he says. The focus positioned Mrs. Clinton to pursue not just foreign-policy results, but domestic economic ones. Early in Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, according to Mr. Hormats, Microsoft’s then Chief Research Officer Craig Mundie asked the State Department to send a ranking official to a fourth annual meeting of U.S. software executives and Chinese government officials about piracy and Internet freedom. Mr. Hormats joined the December 2009 meeting in Beijing. Since 2005, Microsoft has given the Clinton Global Initiative $1.3 million, in addition to free software, according to the foundation. In 2011, Microsoft launched a three-year initiative coordinated by the Clinton Global Initiative to provide free or discounted software and other resources to students and teachers—a commitment Microsoft estimated to be worth $130 million. Mr. Hormats says there was no relation between Microsoft’s donations and the State Department’s participation in the China conference. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation approached GE about working together to expand a health-access initiative the company had launched four years earlier, says a GE spokeswoman. That same year, Mrs. Clinton lobbied for GE to be selected by the Algerian government to build power plants in that country. She went to Algiers that October and met with President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. “I saw an opportunity for advancing prosperity in Algeria and seizing an opportunity for American business,” she explained in her book. A month after Mrs. Clinton’s trip, the Clinton Foundation announced the health-initiative partnership with GE, the company’s first involvement with the foundation. GE eventually contributed between $500,000 and $1 million to the partnership. The following September, GE won the contracts with the Algerian government, saying they marked “some of its largest power agreements in company history.” Mrs. Clinton championed U.S. energy companies and launched an office to promote overseas projects. Many of those efforts were focused in Eastern and Central Europe, where she saw energy development as a hedge against Russia’s dominance in oil and gas. Companies that had interests in those areas included Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp. One effort, the Global Shale Gas Initiative, promoted hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique perfected by U.S. companies. In 2010, Mrs. Clinton flew to Krakow to announce a Polish-American cooperation on a global shale-gas initiative, according to her book. At the time, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted abundant deposits of shale gas in Poland. After pursuing shale-gas projects in Poland, Exxon Mobil gave up a few years later, and Chevron said late last month it would abandon its Poland project. In 2012, Mrs. Clinton flew to Sofia, Bulgaria, and urged the Bulgarian Parliament to reconsider its moratorium on fracking and its withdrawal of Chevron’s five-year exploration license. A few months later, the government allowed conventional gas exploration, but not fracking. Chevron left Bulgaria in 2012. Ben Schreiber of the environmental group Friends of the Earth says: “We’ve long been concerned about the ties that Hillary Clinton has to the oil-and-gas industry.” Both Exxon and Chevron are supporters of the Clinton Foundation. Chevron donated $250,000 in 2013. A Chevron spokesman said the Clinton charity “is one of many programs and partnerships that the company has had or maintains across a number of issue areas and topics pertinent to our business.” Exxon Mobil has given about $2 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, starting in 2009. Since 2007, Exxon Mobil also has given $16.8 million to Vital Voices, the nonprofit women’s group co-founded by Mrs. Clinton, according to the group’s spokeswoman. An Exxon Mobil spokesman said the donations were made to support work on issues Exxon Mobil has long championed, such as programs to fight malaria and empower women. “That is the sole motivation for our support of charitable programs associated with the Clintons,” he said. “We did not seek or receive any special consideration on the Shale Gas Initiative.” In October 2009, Mrs. Clinton went to bat for aerospace giant Boeing, which was seeking to sell jets to Russia, by flying to Moscow to visit the Boeing Design Center. “I made the case that Boeing’s jets set the global gold standard, and, after I left, our embassy kept at it,” she wrote in her book. About seven months later, in June 2010, Russia agreed to purchase 50 Boeing 737s for $3.7 billion, choosing Boeing over Europe’s Airbus Group NV. Two months later, Boeing made its first donation to the Clinton Foundation—$900,000 to help rebuild Haiti’s public-education system. Overall, Boeing has contributed around $1.1 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2010. A Boeing spokeswoman said it is routine for U.S. officials to advocate on behalf of businesses such as Boeing. “U.S. businesses face fierce global competition, and oftentimes an unlevel playing field in the global marketplace,” she said in a written statement. “Secretary Clinton did nothing for Boeing that former U.S. presidents and cabinet secretaries haven’t done for decades, or that their foreign counterparts haven’t done on behalf of companies like Airbus.” Before every overseas trip, says Mr. Hormats, the former undersecretary of state, he helped prepare a list of U.S. corporate interests for Mrs. Clinton to advocate while abroad. During Mrs. Clinton’s three trips to India, she urged the government to kill a ban on stores that sell multiple brands, a law aimed at department stores or big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. “It wasn’t just Wal-Mart,” Mr. Hormats says. “It was the whole point of multibrand retail. Wal-Mart was, of course, the biggest.” Mrs. Clinton served on the board of the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer between 1986 and 1992, when her husband was governor of that state, and the law firm she worked for at the time represented the company. Wal-Mart has donated nearly $1.2 million to the Clinton Foundation for a program that issues grants to student-run charitable projects. The company also has paid more than $370,000 in membership fees to the foundation since 2008, according to a Wal-Mart spokesman. *Trip to India* Before Mrs. Clinton’s official trip to India in 2012, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke joined her at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, to pledge $12 million to help women in Latin America. The donation included $1.5 million in grants to 55,000 women entrepreneurs through the International Fund for Women and Girls, one of the 15 public-private partnerships Mrs. Clinton created at the State Department, and $500,000 for Vital Voices, the charity she co-founded. “We committed to helping women around the world live better,” Mr. Duke said at the time. “By working with leaders like Secretary Clinton, we’re bringing that mission to life.” One month later, Mrs. Clinton traveled to India to make the case against the ban on retail stores such as Wal-Mart. Then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had proposed allowing companies such as Wal-Mart to invest up to 51% directly in local multibrand retailers, but one of his allies, Mamata Banerjee, a regional governor, opposed the idea. Ms. Banerjee’s support was key to Mr. Singh’s majority in Parliament. Mrs. Clinton met with Ms. Banerjee to press the matter. She also said in a speech in West Bengal that U.S. retailers could bring an “enormous amount of expertise” to India in areas ranging from supply-chain management to working with small producers and farmers. Her lobbying was unsuccessful. A Wal-Mart spokesman said the retailer had lobbied the State Department on the issue, which he said was one of dozens of topics important to the business. After Mrs. Clinton’s India trip, her husband asked Mr. Duke, Walmart’s CEO, to change his schedule to appear at the opening panel of the Clinton Global Initiative. Mr. Duke agreed. *New York Times editorial: “Separate Philanthropy From Political Clout” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinion/hillary-clinton-should-ban-foreign-donors-to-the-clinton-global-initiative.html>* By The Editorial Board February 20, 2015 [Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton Should Ban Foreign Donors to the Clinton Global Initiative The Clinton Foundation has become one of the world’s major generators of charity, mobilizing global efforts to confront issues like health, climate change, economic development and equality for women and girls. Since its inception in 2001, it has raised nearly $2 billion in cash and pledges with millions more flowing in from an impressive array of donors, including foreign governments, financial chieftains and domestic donors, many of the latter political heavyweights. All of which underlines the need for Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her all but certified role as a Democratic presidential candidate, to reinstate the foundation’s ban against foreign contributors, who might have matters of concern to bring before a future Clinton administration. This was a restriction Mrs. Clinton worked out with the Obama administration to allay concerns of potential conflict of interest when she became secretary of state in 2009. According to a report this week in The Wall Street Journal, the ban was dropped after Mrs. Clinton left the administration in 2013, leading to a resumption of donations from foreign governments and agencies to the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, which sponsors conferences of world leaders from government, industry and philanthropy. Donors have included the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and a Canadian government agency reported to be involved in promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. Foreign nationals are banned by law from contributing to American politicians’ campaign coffers. This ban does not apply to private foundations, but the idea behind it — that influence should not be bought — is relevant to a political campaign, where appearances can count for much. The foundation, which has drawn bipartisan praise in the past, emphasizes that it is solely a philanthropy, not a political machine, declaring, “The bottom line: These contributions are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.” No critic has alleged a specific conflict of interest. The foundation, in fact, went beyond normal philanthropic bounds for transparency six years ago in instituting voluntary disclosure of donors within broad dollar ranges on its website. But this very information can feed criticism. Donations from foreign governments and nationals, for example, were found to make up more than half of the category of $5-million-plus contributions, according to The Washington Post. A third of donations in the $1-million-plus bracket came from foreign governments and other overseas entities. Substantial overlap was found between foundation contributors and familiar Clinton campaign donors and money bundlers. Considering the Clintons’ popularity and influence in their party, this is no surprise. But it does make it important that Mrs. Clinton, in defending the family’s efforts on behalf of the world’s needy, reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders’ favoritism, should she run for and win the White House. Restoring the restrictions on foreign donors would be a good way to make this point as Mrs. Clinton’s widely expected campaign moves forward. *Wall Street Journal opinion: Kimberly Strassel, member of the WSJ editorial board: “The Clinton Foundation Super PAC” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-the-clinton-foundation-super-pac-1424391547>* By Kimberly A. Strassel February 19, 2015, 7:19 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] It’s past time to drop the fiction that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. Republican presidential aspirants are already launching political-action committees, gearing up for the expensive elections to come. They’ll be hard-pressed to compete with the campaign vehicle Hillary Clinton has been erecting these past 14 years. You know, the Clinton Foundation. With the news this week that Mrs. Clinton—the would-be occupant of the White House—is landing tens of millions from foreign governments for her shop, it’s long past time to drop the fiction that the Clinton Foundation has ever been a charity. It’s a political shop. Bill and Hillary have simply done with the foundation what they did with cattle futures and Whitewater and the Lincoln Bedroom and Johnny Chung—they’ve exploited the system. Most family charities exist to allow self-made Americans to disperse their good fortune to philanthropic causes. The Clinton Foundation exists to allow the nation’s most powerful couple to use their not-so-subtle persuasion to exact global tribute for a fund that promotes the Clintons. Oh sure, the foundation doles out grants for this and that cause. But they don’t rank next to the annual Bill Clinton show—the Clinton Global Initiative event—to which he summons heads of state and basks for a media week as post-presidential statesman. This is an organization that in 2013 spent $8.5 million in travel expenses alone, ferrying the Clintons to headliner events. Those keep Mrs. Clinton in the news, which helps when you want to be president. It’s a body that exists to keep the Clinton political team intact in between elections, working for the Clintons’ political benefit. Only last week it came out that Dennis Cheng, who raised money for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 bid, and then transitioned to the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, is now transitioning back to head up Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 fundraising operation. Mr. Cheng has scored $248 million for the foundation, and his Rolodex comes with him. The Washington Post reported this week that already half the major donors backing Ready for Hillary, a group supporting her 2016 bid, are also foundation givers. How much of these employees’ salaries, how much of Mrs. Clinton’s travel, was funded by the Saudis? Or the United Arab Emirates, or Oman, or any of the other foreign nations that The Wall Street Journal Tuesday reported have given millions to the foundation this past year? How many voters has Mrs. Clinton wooed, how many potential donors has she primed, how many influential people has she recruited for her campaign via the Clinton Foundation? The foundation claims none, but that’s the other Clinton stroke of brilliance in using a charity as a campaign vehicle—we can’t know. Poor Jeb Bush has to abide by all those pesky campaign-finance laws that require him to disclose exact donor names, and dates and amounts. And that also bar contributions from foreign entities. Not a problem for Team Clinton. The foundation does divulge contributors—after a fashion—but doesn’t give exact amounts or dates. Did Mrs. Clinton ever take any oddly timed actions as secretary of state? Who knows? Not the Federal Election Commission. The foundation likes to note that it adopted self-imposed limits on foreign contributions during the period when Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department. Which is nice. Then again, that ban wasn’t absolute, and it isn’t clear it encompassed nonprofits funded by foreign governments, or covered wealthy foreigners, or foreign corporations. Nothing is clear. This is the Clintons. That’s how they like it. This is the baseline scandal of the Clinton Foundation—it’s a political group that gets to operate outside the rules imposed on every other political player. Then comes the ethical morass. Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short summed it up perfectly in a Wednesday WSJ story: “When that 3 a.m. phone call comes, do voters really want to have a president on the line who took truckloads of cash from other countries?” The nation’s ethics guardians have gently declared the Clintons might clear this up with more disclosure, or by again limiting the foundation’s acceptance of foreign money. What about the amounts already banked? The damage is done. If this were Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely GOP candidate, he’d be declared disqualified for office. The benefit of being a Clinton is that the nation expects this, and the bar for disqualification now sits in the exosphere. Democrats might nonetheless consider how big a liability this is for their potential nominee. It’s hard to label your GOP opponent anti-woman when the Clinton Foundation is funded by countries that bar women from voting and driving like Saudi Arabia. It’s hard to call your GOP opponent a heartless capitalist—out of tune with middle-class anxieties—when you owe your foundation’s soul to Canadian mining magnates and Ethiopian construction billionaires. And it’s hard to claim you will fix a burning world when you owe foundation gratitude to countries holding the fossil-fuel blowtorches. Mrs. Clinton won’t let that stop her. So Democrats have to decide if they want to once again put their ethics in the blind Clinton trust. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>) · March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/> ) · March 10 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton addresses United Nations Women’s Conference (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/hillary-clinton-to-headline-united-nations-women-s-conference>) · March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>) · March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse <http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s> )