Correct The Record Tuesday November 25, 2014 Morning Roundup
Correct The Record Tuesday November 25, 2014 Morning Roundup:
Headlines:
"Fox News Sunday ignored a new report from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee that debunked many of the myths that Fox News has spent the last two years promoting."
Sunshine State News: “Hillary Clinton Routing Democratic Primary Foes in Florida”
“Gravis Marketing unveiled a new poll this past weekend showing Clinton claiming 51 percent of Florida Democrats.”
Bloomberg: “Here Is the Perfect Date to Launch a Presidential Campaign”
“This time around, that’s June 12. Candidates, mark your calendars.”
BuzzFeed: “Clinton Shadow Campaign Gets Ready For The Real Thing”
"Susie Tompkins Buell, a major Democratic donor and Clinton’s close friend, provided Correct the Record with early, significant backing. 'My instinct is to protect Hillary,' said Buell. 'She’s such a target, and she needs to be protected by those who believe in her so she can focus on doing her important work.'"
Slate: “Barnes & Noble Has a Plan to Make Physical Books Popular This Black Friday”
“Instead of competing head on with Amazon this Black Friday, Barnes & Noble is looking to offer something that the online retailer can't. The bookstore announced today that come this weekend, it will sell 500,000 signed copies of the latest works from 100 prominent authors. On the non-fiction side, authors include George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Malcolm Gladwell, Neil Patrick Harris, and Amy Poehler. In fiction, Dan Brown, Jodi Picoult, and Donna Tartt are among those taking part.”
U.S. News & World Report: “Benghazi Isn't Going Away For Hillary”
“Politics is often irrational and more driven by perception than any series of facts. And it’s hard to imagine any report that would be powerful enough to halt Republicans from using the incident and its aftermath against Hillary Clinton in 2016.”
Washington Post: “With other Benghazi investigations completed, final probe ramping up”
“Republicans who remain convinced that there was an Obama administration coverup surrounding the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, are pinning their hopes on one last congressional probe to produce proof of a scandal. Others in the GOP, however, are urging that the party drop the Benghazi conspiracy theories and move on.”
“House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said Monday that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) will continue to head a special panel to investigate the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, pushing ahead with the probe despite the release Friday of a GOP-led report that found no attempt to mislead the public.”
The Hill: “Pressure builds for Senate to join Benghazi probe”
“Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), three young rising conservative stars who are weighing 2016 bids, say the Senate should participate in a joint investigation with the House.”
Politicker NJ: “Source: Kempner and Gottheimer prep another group of Clinton for Prez backers”
“Hillary Clinton anchor fundraisers Mike Kempner and Josh Gottheimer welcomed the second round of Clinton fundraisers and friends to the Robert Treat Hotel tonight to polish the fundraising arm in the lead-up to a 2016 Clinton presidential candidacy.”
Associated Press: “Democrats name 3 finalists to host 2016 convention”
“Democrats narrowed the list of contenders for their 2016 national convention to three cities on Monday, announcing the party's next presidential candidate will be formally nominated in New York City, Philadelphia or Columbus, Ohio.”
Politico: “Al Sharpton: Rand Paul’s outreach to blacks could hurt Democrats in 2016”
“Sharpton added that Paul’s actions could put ‘a lot of pressure’ even on Democrats such as Hillary Clinton — a potential 2016 frontrunner for the party — who have good records on civil rights.”
The Hill blog: Congress Blog: “Ex-Im helps Hillary's friends at Boeing, not women-owned firms”
“Clinton maintains questionable political alliances with some of Ex-Im’s biggest beneficiaries.”
Articles:
By Oliver Willis
November 23, 2014, 5:02 p.m. EST
Fox News Sunday ignored a new report from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee that debunked many of the myths that Fox News has spent the last two years promoting.
On November 21, the Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released its reporton the September 2012 attacks on two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Similar to the many preceding investigations into the attacks -- including the Accountability Review Board and the bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- the report found that no stand down order was issued during the attacks, there was no intelligence failure leading up to the attack, and that the talking points the administration used in the days following the attacks were based on the CIA's best assessment at the time.
The November 23 edition of Fox News Sunday did not inform viewers of the report's findings. This stands in stark contrast to Fox's longstanding campaign to promote myths about the attacks.
Fox has been a tireless promoter of nearly every facet of the Benghazi hoax. In the 20 months following the attacks, Fox ran over 1,100 segments on Benghazi and hosted Republicans at a rate of 30:1 over Democrats to discuss the issue. Meanwhile, the network has routinely ignored and downplayed evidence refuting its conspiracy theories.
CNN media critic Brian Stelter noted that other Fox programs only provided cursory coverage of the report on the night of its release and that Fox never mentioned it the following day. According to Stelter (emphasis added):
STELTER: Boy, has Fox News spent a lot of time over the past two years focused on the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and I mean a lot of time. [...] But when a new Benghazi report came out on Friday, there was hardly a peep, and maybe that's because the report, which was Republican led, it was by the House Intelligence committee, debunks many of the myths that have run rampant on Fox News and in conservative media circles. [...] So I have to wonder: will Fox will stop aggressively pushing its theories about Benghazi? Probably not. With its audience largely in the dark about the latest findings, the myths may, and perhaps will, live on.
On the November 23 edition of Fox News' own MediaBuzz, host Howard Kurtz noted that it only received "brief" coverage on Fox and that the results of the two-year long investigation "deserved more coverage from all news outlets."
Sunshine State News: “Hillary Clinton Routing Democratic Primary Foes in Florida”
By Kevin Derby
November 24, 2014, 1:56 p.m. EST
Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton starts out 2016 as the favorite to win the Florida primary for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Gravis Marketing unveiled a new poll this past weekend showing Clinton claiming 51 percent of Florida Democrats. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., stands in distant second with 18 percent followed by Vice President Joe Biden with 12 percent. Two governors--Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Andrew Cuomo--lag far behind. O’Malley takes 4 percent and Cuomo 2 percent.
The poll of 694 Florida Democratic primary voters was taken from Nov. 20-21 and had a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.
Bloomberg: “Here Is the Perfect Date to Launch a Presidential Campaign”
By Mira Rojanasakul and Adam Pearce
November 25, 2014, 5:01 a.m. EST
The midterm elections are barely behind us, but already the political world is speculating about who will be the first major presidential contender—Hillary Clinton? Chris Chris Christie? Rand Paul?—to officially enter the 2016 race for the White House. (Jim Webb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, said last week he was forming an exploratory committee.) Would-be candidates might be wise to hold off. If history is any guide, the ideal day to announce for president is…
… First In
Why? Going back to 1952, the most recent year with accurate records, no candidate who was first onto the field has won the presidency. Democrats Adlai Stevenson (1956) and George McGovern (1972) got as far as clinching their party’s nomination but went on to lose in the general election.
… Last In
Have candidates had better luck swooping in all fresh-faced at the very end? Only one: Ronald Reagan, who was last to announce in 1980 and won the White House.
… Somewhere in Between
In every other election since 1972—the year state primaries became more important than nominating conventions as the way parties choose presidential candidates—successful contenders announced somewhere in the mushy middle, not long before or long after their rivals.
… Every Candidate, Each Year
Since ’72, winners have declared an average 492 days before the general election. In years where no incumbent was running, the winner announced an average 511 days before Election Day. This time around, that’s June 12. Candidates, mark your calendars.
BuzzFeed: “Clinton Shadow Campaign Gets Ready For The Real Thing”
By Ruby Cramer
November 25, 2014, 7:00 a.m. EST
[Subtitle:] How three groups plan to raise unimaginable money, duel Republicans, and deliver a huge email list to Hillary Clinton. A big shift is coming after an unprecedented year.
The first item on the agenda was titled, “Why We’re Here.”
That’s how it started, one year ago this month. Except no one at the Parker Meridien that day in New York seemed to know the answer.
Political operatives wandered the halls of the hotel between meetings, while two or three reporters hung around near the elevators, aimless. What they were covering, how it would all work and exactly to what end, wasn’t clear at the time. But that small, scattered scene at the conference — a day-long series of panel discussions billed as a 2016 “strategy session” — marked the loose beginnings of a coordinated, unprecedented early effort to elect a U.S. president.
The Hillary Clinton “shadow” operation — call it a pre-campaign, or the “queen’s machine,” as one Republican news site has put it — is better defined now.
Three organizations make up what, together, is considered a formidable triad: Ready for Hillary, Correct the Record, Priorities USA. Respectively, the groups have amassed Clinton supporters, defended her in the press, and made preparations to raise millions to augment her possible campaign.
Last Friday, the stakeholders convened in New York again.
The occasion was the same: the Ready for Hillary national finance council meeting — a day of closed-door panel discussions with Clinton supporters, donors, and strategists who work at the other two outside groups.
But one year later, the pro-Clinton enterprise was larger — more organized and better synchronized. The aimlessness of the first meeting had been replaced by an air of authority. It was all very official. There were Ready for Hillary-branded centerpieces at each table. There were more people, and more reporters. Surrogates of the shadow campaign like Buffy Wicks, executive director of Priorities, cycled through the pressroom to take questions. The day before, Correct the Record aides set up a lunch with a few dozen donors.
Ready for Hillary had even moved the conference from the Parker Meridien to a larger, perhaps more symbolic venue: the Sheraton in Midtown — the place the Clintons host their foundation’s annual Global Initiative meeting.
The trio of groups was a long way past the “Why We’re Here” panel last November. At the meeting, Wicks described the alliance between the pro-Clinton groups as a “three-legged stool” that would be kept stable and well-resourced.
Together, the three organizations have appeared powerful and effective. The coalition has tacitly communicated something important: that a team of strategists have “laid the groundwork,” “set the stage,” and “built the foundation” for a campaign. The perception of a Clinton machine is valuable.
But individually, the impact of each group is harder to grasp, and less discussed. In more than two dozen interviews and conversations this month about what Priorities, Correct the Record, and Ready for Hillary, Democrats inside and outside the Clinton effort said the campaign cliches reveal little about what each organization did and did not actually accomplish in the last year.
Now Clinton’s real campaign could be just months away. And in the waning days of the “shadow” efforts, the role and shape of all three groups is rapidly shifting.
The super PAC had a new board of directors, a new office, and a new candidate: Hillary Clinton. But three months after the closely watched retooling, when the first quarter closed this year, Priorities USA Action issued a statement trumpeting how little it had raised. The finally tally was just over $4,000.
After the second quarter, they did it again, raising just shy of $2,000. In the third quarter, the number was even lower: $216.
This is the same PAC that spent $67 million on President Obama’s reelection.
The slow fundraising was a sign of good faith — evidence, as the group’s spokesman, Peter Kauffmann, said this summer, that the PAC was continuing to “focus our efforts on supporting Democrats in 2014,” rather than distracting from the midterms by raising money for an unconfirmed Clinton bid.
Earlier in the year, Priorities received a spate of unwanted headlines after the group announced they wouldn’t be funding midterm candidates directly. (Democrats ended up losing at least eight seats in the Senate and 12 in the House this fall.)
Instead, officials at the PAC encouraged their donors to give to midterms candidates, while also taking informal meetings with contacts about 2016.
Now the real work begins for Priorities: raising a massive sum of money.
Officials have not made a fundraising goal public. The number $300 million has been discussed as a possible benchmark, according to two people familiar with the group’s plans. Wicks wouldn’t talk dollar targets on Friday. “The answer is enough resources to communicate the message,” she told reporters.
Even for Priorities, considered one of the most potent big money groups in either party, raising $300 million would be an enormous feat. But this time around, the organization will benefit from more accepting attitudes toward super PACs.
During Obama’s reelection campaign, when two former White House aides formed Priorities, the president was among the loudest opponents of outside, unlimited spending. Even after he endorsed Priorities in early 2012, donors were still nervous to give to the PAC — would it be held against them?
The group would eventually secure 29 checks for $1 million or more from individual donors. Each one required significant legwork from the Priorities co-founders and two other key figures: Jeffrey Katzenberg, a Hollywood executive and a longtime donor and fundraiser, and Paul Begala, the former Bill Clinton strategist who serves as a senior adviser to the PAC.
“Priorities had to devote a lot of energy to justifying its existence, in addition to doing the work of helping reelect Obama,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster who served as Clinton’s top strategist for the final two months of her campaign. “In 2016, Priorities will start off from a better position of strength and credibility.”
Ahead of the next election, it’s not clear who will lead on what could be one of the most ambitious outside fundraising projects in politics.
The Priorities co-chairs both work on the PAC in a part-time capacity. Jim Messina, Obama’s reelection campaign manager, runs his own consulting firm, and Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan, teaches at Berkeley.
Jonathan Mantz, the national finance director on Clinton’s last presidential race, is currently the PAC’s senior adviser to finance. He and Diane Rogalle, Priorities’ finance director, are expected to direct the group’s fundraising strategy. And Begala and Katzenberg, one source said, will help secure checks again this cycle.
But how Priorities will get the big checks, and with whose help, is the question occupying officials there now, two sources close to the group said.
Donors anticipate that the Clintons, and particularly Bill Clinton, will play a direct role in Priorities fundraising efforts, according to three people with knowledge of discussions among the PAC’s network about the idea.
One suggested that Bill Clinton, among the most popular political figures in the country, would be the bold name the PAC needed to help bring in big checks.
“I would expect them both to be involved,” one Democratic donor said.
Kauffmann, the spokesperson, said Priorities officials hadn’t discussed the possibility that the former president would help with fundraising. “There have been no conversations about President Clinton raising money for Priorities,” Kauffman wrote in a statement last week.
Before the announcement of a campaign, federal election rules would not restrict the Clintons from fundraising for Priorities. They could both speak at events and make direct solicitations for unlimited amounts of money — a scenario people close to the couple dismissed as improbable.
If Clinton does open a campaign account, either in the former of an initial exploratory committee or a campaign committee, she and her husband could still appear and speak at Priorities fundraisers — so long as they don’t make the asks for contributions, according to a 2011 Federal Election Commission ruling.
Mitt Romney took this approach with his super PAC, Restoring Our Future.
In 2012, Bill Clinton attended multiple events for Priorities. Obama appeared at only one, a lunch hosted by Katzenberg. The White House later described it as a “thank you event for the campaign’s supporters,” not a fundraiser.
Clinton could have a different approach to the optics of outside spending. “She will take a more favorable view of these super PAC activities than Obama ever did,” said a source with knowledge of her thinking on the topic.
The group has already started soliciting major donors, one source said. But officials also said Priorities won’t move at full pace until Clinton runs.
“Priorities is meeting with key supporters to discuss the dynamics of the 2016 presidential race,” said Kauffman. “We played a critical role in helping elect a Democratic president in 2012 and we look forward to doing the same in 2016.”
On a Friday in late May, Democrats from an array of left-leaning groups in Washington met for a national security briefing at the offices of Third Way.
The centrist think tank regularly holds briefings for strategists. But the gathering last spring, as first reported by Politico, took place about two weeks ahead of the release of Hillary Clinton’s new memoir, a chronicle of her four years as secretary of state. And the discussion focused in part on how best to respond to Republicans about the most controversial moment of Clinton’s tenure: the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Clinton’s longtime spokesman, now a top adviser, Philippe Reines, attended the Third Way briefing, along with a number of her former aides.
A new partner was also at the table: Correct the Record.
The group — an arm of the the super PAC, American Bridge — was one of many represented at the May briefing. But their presence at the Third Way offices signaled the extent to which the organization has served as, and was sanctioned to be, a de facto Clinton communications shop for much of the last year.
Clinton has voiced her approval of the group’s work. “She has told donors that this needed to be done,” someone familiar with the conversations said.
Susie Tompkins Buell, a major Democratic donor and Clinton’s close friend, provided Correct the Record with early, significant backing. “My instinct is to protect Hillary,” said Buell. “She’s such a target, and she needs to be protected by those who believe in her so she can focus on doing her important work.”
Buell said she hasn’t talked to Clinton about backing Correct the Record. (She is also a co-chair of Ready for Hillary’s finance council.) “It wouldn’t be appropriate,” she said. “I know she’s an appreciative person, so I don’t need to hear anything from her. I don’t expect it and don’t need it.”
Correct the Record is led by David Brock, the founder of American Bridge and Media Matters, an organization that monitors conservative news outlets.
The group has two components: a research team that has compiled pages and pages of material about Clinton’s political history, and a “rapid response” communications operation that aims to defend her in the press.
At first, the group occasionally launched hits in the press unprompted against possible Republican presidential candidates, including Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul. When Christie got in trouble for closing lanes on the George Washington Bridge, Correct the Record released a graphic showing traffic signs that read, “Political Retribution” and “Lanes Closed. Expect Christie?” The picture drew story headlines like “Clinton-linked group attacks Christie.”
Since then, Correct the Record has stayed focused on Clinton.
Democrats inside and outside the pro-Clinton effort said in interviews this month that Correct the Record’s value hasn’t been its public research material. (Clinton is one of the most covered, and vetted, potential presidential candidates in modern politics.) Instead, the organization has filled a void, serving as an on-the-record political voice for Clinton.
After she left the State Department, Clinton spent most of her time working at the family foundation, writing her book, and giving paid speeches. When she was criticized in the press — whether by a Republican lawmaker or a right-leaning group — it was most often Correct the Record that responded with a quote or a press release. Political reporters were more likely to get a comment from the outside group than a reply from a Clinton spokesperson.
Since her memoir came out this summer, Clinton has waded back into the debate. In September, she returned to the campaign trail, holding fundraisers and rallies for more than 26 candidates. And last week, when Obama announced a series of executive actions to slow deportations, Clinton’s personal office released statement to reporters, saying she supported the move.
As a campaign gets closer, Clinton will become even more involved. When it begins, she will build up her own existing communications team.
Correct the Record has plans to stay active alongside her campaign, as first reported in the New York Times last week. The group, Clinton supporters said, faces the challenge of staying out of her staff’s way while still being helpful.
“Correct the Record’s mission all along has been to fight the right against false and unfair attacks on potential presidential Democratic candidates, most notably Hillary Clinton,” the group’s communications director, Adrienne Elrod, said in a written statement. “Our mission is far from complete.”
“Moving forward, Correct the Record will remain central and fundamental to taking on the right-wing and others who seek to mislead the public.”
The organization will likely focus on responding to attacks from other outside groups, like the anti-Clinton firm, America Rising. Supporters said that if Correct the Record is successful in engaging Republican attacks, Clinton’s campaign would be able to focus on its message, staying as “positive” as possible.
“The campaign itself might not want to be in perpetual response mode,” said Garin, the pollster and former Clinton strategist. “In that sense, it’s helpful to have a third-party correcting falsehoods about Clinton from outside entities and right-wing news outlets whose oxygen will be attacking Hillary.”
Ready for Hillary was just a few months old. It was late spring in 2013, and no one quite knew what to make of the thing. Was it a draft movement? A fundraising venue? A campaign-in-waiting? The group had only 200,000 people on its email list — but each week more and more followers signed up.
Clinton’s advisers and former aides were watching warily.
By May, the group received valuable stamps of approval from Clinton loyalists like James Carville, Harold Ickes, Ellen Tauscher, and Buell. Bill Clinton’s old political director, Craig Smith, had also signed on as a senior advisor.
Early that summer, a leading New York donor sent an email to a group of fundraising contacts: “I just spoke with Craig Smith who is now advising Ready for Hillary PAC and, just so you know, it is okay for us to be supporting this now.”
The mass email from the donor, a longtime Clinton backer, is emblematic of the slow, begrudging way in which her world eventually accepted Ready for Hillary.
The group, co-founded by 29-year-old former Clinton staffer Adam Parkhomenko, still had detractors — including, for a time last year, the officials at Priorities, who believed the new PAC would compete for its donors. But most have embraced the group. In the absence of a real campaign, and with a growing list of supporters and strong marketing acumen, Ready for Hillary became impossible to ignore.
Clinton’s supporters also saw the value of a single hub for a pre-Clinton PAC, rather than an array of smaller, less reliable groups, which were already sprouting up in election filings by the spring of last year. Eventually, it became clear that Ready for Hillary was considered the dominant organization.
A year and a half later, the self-described “grassroots super PAC” has grown to a massive size. State and federal elected officials, including 16 senators, have directly endorsed the group since last summer. The PAC has appeared in every state, assembled a list of more than 3 million Clinton supporters, built a squad of about 35,000 volunteers, and hired a staff of 29 full-time employees. Their operating costs total roughly $23,000 per day, according to Bloomberg Politics.
The Ready for Hillary mission is straightforward: to build a list of people who support Clinton — and to provide fans a viable outlet for their enthusiasm.
“The storyline remains familiar and simple,” said Tracy Sefl, a Democratic strategist who has served as a senior adviser to the group since last year. “And for some time now, Ready for Hillary has been doing what we do.”
But of the three pro-Clinton entities, the group is perhaps the most misconstrued. The group is often credited with “laying the groundwork” for a Clinton bid, or building a “campaign infrastructure” two years in advance. But the generalizations glaze over the actual work of the PAC, which will come to an end when a Clinton campaign begins, as Politico first reported in detail.
Ready for Hillary’s most valuable asset is its list of 3 million Clinton supporters.
Each person on the list has, at the very least, supplied an email address and mailing zip code — or, if a supporter signs up through the mail, a physical address where he or she can be contacted. (The 3 million figure does not include Facebook users who have liked the group’s page, an official said.) The PAC also collects data about whether a member has made donations, volunteered, attended events, or purchased merchandise on the Ready for Hillary website.
Officials with the PAC expect Clinton will want the list.
The group has taken steps to ensure the quality of the data. Through an internal system, built by NGP VAN, the leading technology company for Democrats, the Ready for Hillary list “instantaneously” marries up, or syncs data, with a 50-state voter file, according to a person familiar with the system.
Ready for Hillary purchased the voter file from NGP VAN last year. The file is a comprehensive database that includes information about voting history. An official with the PAC would not disclose what percentage of this list matches the voter file — a possible indicator of the list’s value to a campaign.
Officials expect they will be able to transfer the data to Clinton through a list swap. The process could be logistically and legally complicated. But the group has, one aide said, already walked through the ways a swap could work with Jim Lamb, the former Clinton lawyer Ready for Hillary hired last year. Organizers said they hadn’t discussed the list with anyone inside Clinton’s direct orbit.
“It’s a safe assumption that someone should acquire the data and utilize it fully,” said Sefl, the Ready For Hillary senior advisor.
The list’s value is often confused for a field operation in the making. Aside from the work of a few regional staffers, the PAC hasn’t built an infrastructure that resembles the scale of a presidential campaign’s field organization.
“People think there’s this huge campaign structure that Ready for Hillary has built, but if there is, not a lot of folks have seen it,” said a senior Democratic operative. “They’re not building a huge field operation. They’re building a list.”
“But it’s an important list. Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb would kill to have that.”
Scott Brennan, the chair of the Democratic Party in Iowa, described the PAC’s work in clear terms. “They’ve built lists,” he said. “They have volunteers.”
In Iowa, where the first event of the nominating process is historically held, voters can get “a little squishy,” Brennan said, about nontraditional campaign methods, such as a super PAC supporting a campaign that doesn’t yet exist.
“Obviously, people want to see candidates here, and she has been here,” he said.
As the next presidential race gets closer, more and more voters will want the candidate, not the PAC. Ready for Hillary officials are now preparing for that next phase. The group is planning to shut down when a campaign begins, though it still has events planned in cities across the country through at least January.
After a year on the road promoting their “Ready” brand on state-to-state bus tour, the group is quieter now, shifting into its role in the background.
When Bill Clinton spoke in New Hampshire this fall, Ready for Hillary co-hosted the event and stocked the venue with posters bearing their trademark.
But a month later, when Hillary Clinton returned to the state to headline a campaign rally for two Democrats, the super PAC’s presence was far more faint.
There were no signs or posters, no “Ready” branding on the walls. From the venue, you could barely spot the group’s bus, idling on the far edge of the parking lot, allowing more space than usual to the candidate-to-be.
Slate: “Barnes & Noble Has a Plan to Make Physical Books Popular This Black Friday”
By Allison Griswold
November 24, 2014, 6:07 p.m. EST
Instead of competing head on with Amazon this Black Friday, Barnes & Noble is looking to offer something that the online retailer can't. The bookstore announced today that come this weekend, it will sell 500,000 signed copies of the latest works from 100 prominent authors. On the non-fiction side, authors include George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Malcolm Gladwell, Neil Patrick Harris, and Amy Poehler. In fiction, Dan Brown, Jodi Picoult, and Donna Tartt are among those taking part.
Barnes & Noble says the effort has been in the works for more than half a year, with each author signing thousands of copies of their books for readers. "Some went beyond their signature to personalize the books," the chain notes in its release. Mo Willems, a children's book author and illustrator, sketched the head of one of his characters in signed editions. Mary Amicucci, Barnes & Noble's vice president of adult trade and children's books, told MarketWatch that authors weren't paid for their efforts but were "hugely enthusiastic" about the plan.
The key to this particular Black Friday deal is that it's available in stores only. In that way, it's a pretty obvious ploy to get book lovers off of Amazon and into Barnes & Noble's physical locations, but it also seems like a savvy one. After all, if you come in to snag an autographed copy of The Goldfinch or The Polar Express—the kind of thing you can't just download onto your Kindle—you might also decide to pick up that copy of Pride and Prejudice you'd been meaning to get instead of ordering it online.
Barnes & Noble is under significant pressure to perform well this holiday season; its same-store sales have sunk for seven straight quarters, though its stock is up 60 percent year-to-date. Signed copies alone might not be enough to reverse that decline. But if nothing else, the amount of foot traffic and sales they generate should be a good test of whether big-name authors still have enough fan power to make a physical book worth its often hefty price.
U.S. News & World Report: “Benghazi Isn't Going Away For Hillary”
By David Catanese
November 24, 2014, 2:55 p.m. EST
At first glance, a rational observer might see a Republican-led House committee’s verdict on the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, as the resolving voice in the 2012 tragedy that took the lives of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador.
The House Intelligence Committee found there “was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.”
Some in the media seized on the report to declare that “Benghazi coverage will finally be put to rest.”
But politics is often irrational and more driven by perception than any series of facts. And it’s hard to imagine any report that would be powerful enough to halt Republicans from using the incident and its aftermath against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
After more than a year of drumbeat coverage on the issue in conservative media, for a GOP White House aspirant to just drop it because of a 37-page House report would be akin to political malpractice. Besides, there’s another investigation still underway, helmed by South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy.
It’s true: This report will give Clinton a nice reference point to combat the coming attacks. Even Republicans investigated and found no systemic failure, she can say.
But that doesn’t mean it’s going away. Not by a long shot.
Take Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who is floating his own name for a presidential run in 2016.
“Full of crap” is how he succinctly described the report’s findings on CNN this weekend.
As a respected foreign policy voice on the GOP side of the ledger, his comments give other 2016 contenders cover for continuing their own verbal broadsides on the controversy.
Republicans see the Benghazi attack as an inarguable blemish on Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Her off-handed comment (“What difference – at this point – does it make?”) questioning the worthiness of identifying the reason for the attacks at the moment they occurred will be fodder for countless ads against her.
Additionally, the Benghazi episode is a critical piece in the larger narrative the GOP will attempt to construct around what they see as a feckless Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton foreign policy.
There isn’t a special committee or gray-bearded statesman who can change that.
The red-hot issue is bound to come up in the GOP primary and in the general election. It’s difficult to imagine Benghazi not being a pointed question Clinton has to address in debate over foreign policy in 2016.
If it’s not, the Republican nominee will be sure to make it one.
Washington Post: “With other Benghazi investigations completed, final probe ramping up”
By Ed O’Keefe
November 24, 2014, 7:46 p.m. EST
Republicans who remain convinced that there was an Obama administration coverup surrounding the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, are pinning their hopes on one last congressional probe to produce proof of a scandal.
Others in the GOP, however, are urging that the party drop the Benghazi conspiracy theories and move on.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi will produce what Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday will be “the definitive report” on the attack that killed four Americans on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and he reappointed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) , a former federal prosecutor known for his patterned blazers and impressive oratorical skills, to lead the panel.
“Two years later, the American people still have far too many questions about what happened that night — and why,” Boehner said in a statement.
The heightened interest in the select committee comes in the wake of a House Intelligence Committee report, released last week, that rejected long-running conspiracy theories that the U.S. military was prevented from rescuing Americans targeted in the attack.
Gowdy’s committee will hold a public hearing next month — only its second since being established in May — with other hearings planned for next year, including several behind closed doors in order to review classified information, according to aides who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Democrats complain that the committee is a waste of both time and money, since it has developed no clear purpose or specific plan.
Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) — an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy — say that the Gowdy panel can produce significant results because it enjoys a broader mandate than the oversight committees that have produced reports so far. In those cases. the committees investigated specific actions by the CIA, Pentagon or State Department.
“I hope a joint committee looking at all three agencies together, rather than stove-piping, can get through this,” Graham said over the weekend on CNN. The South Carolina Republican was especially critical of the House Intelligence Committee report.
While the report did fault the CIA and other agencies for incorrectly assessing what caused the attacks and the White House for a “flawed” public response, it mostly debunked the assertions that the casualties were caused by delayed military response.
Graham called the intelligence panel’s report “absolute garbage.” Speaking Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” he said the report “puts all the blame on the State Department and absolves the intelligence community.”
“When the Department of Defense committees looked at [the attacks], the Department of Defense was held blameless. At the end of the day, everybody is pointing fingers to everybody else,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said Rubio was not pleased with the House Intelligence report.
“Regardless of the report’s conclusions, many unanswered questions still remain, such as why no one at the State Department has been held accountable for the failure to heed the intelligence warnings of the deteriorating security situation in Libya, which is outrageous,” spokeswoman Brooke Sammon said in an e-mail.
Spokesmen for other potential GOP presidential candidates, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), didn’t respond to requests for comment.
At least some Republicans, including Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), believe it’s time for the GOP to drop the issue altogether.
“I’ve always thought the biggest problem with Benghazi is how it was cast by the administration and the remarks that Susan Rice just really threw in the face of what we knew was going on,” he said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “But with regard to the other things that were addressed by this report, well, yes, I thought for a long time that we ought to move beyond that.”
Gowdy said in a statement that the intelligence panel’s report will assist his “comprehensive investigation” that is designed to produce the “final, definitive accounting of the attack on behalf of Congress.”
Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), another former federal prosecutor and a member of the select committee, said that the intelligence panel’s work “is one of many tools” that will be used “to put together a cohesive and comprehensive picture of the attack on our consulate.”
“The American public deserves all of the facts regarding this tragic attack, and we are employing a deliberative and thorough process to find them,” Brooks said.
Democrats on the committee have complained that Boehner is devoting at least $3.3 million in taxpayer funding to bankroll a committee without any clear goals
“We don’t have a timetable yet, and we don’t have a scope of investigation yet,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Benghazi committee, said Monday in an interview. “It’s not because [Gowdy] is unwilling to work with us, it’s that we haven’t come to a conclusion about where it’s headed.”
Schiff defended the intelligence panel for working over two years on a report that was unanimously approved by all the members.
“The only real objection we’re hearing is that it contradicts a myth. And for some, no amount of factual documentation is going to change their Fox-driven conclusion,” he said, referring to the Fox News Channel, which has aggressively covered the attack, its aftermath and subsequent investigations.
By Michael R. Crittenden
November 24, 2014, 7:51 p.m. EST
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said Monday that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) will continue to head a special panel to investigate the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, pushing ahead with the probe despite the release Friday of a GOP-led report that found no attempt to mislead the public.
Mr. Boehner said in a statement that “the American people still have far too many questions about what happened that night – and why” in announcing that he would reappoint Mr. Gowdy and the other GOP members to a House select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead.
“I look forward to the definitive report Chairman Gowdy and the Select Committee will present to the American people,” Mr. Boehner said.
Mr. Boehner made his announcement just days after the House Intelligence Committee issued a report that deflated many of the allegations made by White House critics over the attack and subsequent response by the Obama administration. The report found that the U.S. military and Central Intelligence Agency responded properly at the time of the attacks and that, while some “talking points” used by the administration were flawed, there was no attempt to mislead the public.
The intelligence panel’s report said that it is meant to be the “definitive House statement” on the matter and that it was being made public “so that the American public can separate the actual facts from the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations.”
Democrats have repeatedly said the formation of the Benghazi select committee is a political stunt and is intended to provide political fodder to use against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she runs for president in 2016. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, top Democrat on the select Benghazi panel, questioned the point of replicating the numerous other investigations into the attacks.
“Based on these unanimous, bipartisan findings, there is no reason for the Benghazi Select Committee to reinvestigate these facts, repeat the work already done by our Republican and Democratic colleagues, and squander millions of additional taxpayer dollars in the process,” Mr. Cummings said in a statement.
A spokesman for Benghazi Select Committee Republicans said on Friday that the panel had received the intelligence committee’s report “months ago,” and that it would aid the panel’s investigation.
The Hill: “Pressure builds for Senate to join Benghazi probe”
By Alexander Bolton
November 25, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST
Senate Republican leaders are under pressure from GOP lawmakers with presidential ambitions to join the House in investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack.
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), three young rising conservative stars who are weighing 2016 bids, say the Senate should participate in a joint investigation with the House.
“The House is doing its job and engaged in oversight. For six years under [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-Nev.], the Senate has refused to do its job. I am hopeful and optimistic the Senate will finally begin meaningful oversight. That is its constitutional responsibility,” Cruz told The Hill.
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is set to take over as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has yet to decide whether the Senate needs to deploy its investigate resources while the House is already doing so.
“What we need to do is talk with the House guys, see where they are and see if they think it’s helpful,” McCain said when asked whether the Senate should launch an investigation. “I’ll be guided by that.”
The 2008 presidential nominee has been discussing his options with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
A House GOP aide said the decision about whether the Senate participates is up to the leadership, including McCain and other incoming Republican leadership. Meanwhile, Gowdy has directed his panel to continue moving forward with its investigation..
The South Carolina congressman has scheduled a hearing for December although the date and witness list has yet to be determined. He has also laid out an intensive investigative plan for 2015 that will include multiple hearings early in the year — some open to the public and others behind closed doors.
Cruz introduced a resolution last year calling on Congress to create a joint Senate-House committee to investigate Benghazi.
Paul, Rubio and 23 other Senate Republicans co-sponsored the measure — including Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) but not Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Aides to Paul and Rubio on Friday said their bosses believe the Senate should join the House select committee.
Rubio earlier this year criticized the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he sits on, because it had “not even attempted to conduct a thorough investigation into these terrorist attacks that took the lives of four brave Americans.”
The House Intelligence Committee released a report Friday that largely exonerated the Obama administration of Republican charges that it had covered up the circumstances of the attack and intentionally mislead Congress.
Democrats argue the latest House findings call into question the need for further investigation.
“Serious investigations have shown that the administration acted appropriately in Benghazi. Sen. McCain should think twice before throwing even more taxpayer dollars into what amounts to a baseless partisan stunt,” said a Senate Democratic aide.
The House intelligence panel, chaired by retiring Republican Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), found the administration did not intentionally mislead the public when Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, used talking points describing the attack as “spontaneous” and “not premeditated.”
The GOP-controlled panel also concluded “there was no stand down order issued” to the military that stopped it from intervening in the attack.
A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said it has reviewed the Intelligence Committee’s report “along with other committee reports and materials as the investigation proceeds.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain’s closest ally in the Senate, attacked the House report Sunday as “full of crap.”
"I don't believe that the report is accurate, given the role that Mike Morell played in misleading the Congress on two different occasions. Why didn't the report say that?" he told CNN’s “State of the Union” in an interview Sunday, referring to the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time.
He argued that when Rice went on television after the attack she said on three occasions the consulate was strongly, secured when “nothing could be further … from the truth.”
“She gave an impression to the American people that these folks were well taken care of, when it was in fact a death trap. Who told her to say that?” he said, describing the House report “a complete bunch of garbage.”
Graham, who has floated a White House bid of his own, said last week the Senate needs to investigate.
“What I would envision is a select committee being formed in the Senate of members from the appropriate committees instead of a stovepipe approach,” he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
“We would create a select committee in the Senate to marry up with the select committee in the House, become a joint select committee, bootstrap on the work already done by the House, and take this to its logical conclusion,” he added.
The attack killed Christopher Stephens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, two months before the 2012 presidential election and became a vulnerability for President Obama in the campaign.
Evidence that the State Department mishandled security before the attack, botched its response or tried to hide mistakes would become an issue in the 2016 campaign if Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of State at the time, runs for the White House.
Paul, a leading 2016 contender, has repeatedly criticized Clinton for not taking the security situation in Libya more seriously.
He argues that if “she cannot protect our embassies” it “precludes her from ever being considered as commander in chief.”
Politicker NJ: “Source: Kempner and Gottheimer prep another group of Clinton for Prez backers”
By Max Pizarro
November 24, 2014, 9:13 p.m. EST
Hillary Clinton anchor fundraisers Mike Kempner and Josh Gottheimer welcomed the second round of Clinton fundraisers and friends to the Robert Treat Hotel tonight to polish the fundraising arm in the lead-up to a 2016 Clinton presidential candidacy.
Thirty donors and public personalities convened for dinner at the Robert Treat tonight.
The guests included Democratic State Chairman John Currie, Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-37), Englewood Mayor Frank Huttle, Bergen County Democratic Chairman Lou Stellato, state Senator M. Teresa Ruiz (D-29), labor leader Milly Silva, attorney Phil Sellinger.
Former Obama State Director Mark Alexander was in the room.
A source with knowledge of the meeting said the group members left with a charged-up sense of the coming presidential contest and prepared to fundraise and campaign for the former Secretary of State.
The New Jersey goal is to raise $5-$10 million by day one of Clinton’s launch, the source added.
Kempner – CEO of MWW – and Gottheimer – a former Clinton speechwriter – convened the first big power broker summit for Clinton a month ago.
Associated Press: “Democrats name 3 finalists to host 2016 convention”
By Ken Thomas
November 24, 2014, 2:42 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats narrowed the list of contenders for their 2016 national convention to three cities on Monday, announcing the party's next presidential candidate will be formally nominated in New York City, Philadelphia or Columbus, Ohio.
The Democratic National Committee said convention bids made by Birmingham, Alabama and Phoenix had been eliminated.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman, announced the finalists in an email to Democrats and said the event would be held either the weeks of July 18, July 25 or August 22. She said the DNC expects to announce the host city in early 2015.
The three remaining cities could offer an appealing backdrop for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential contender should she seek the White House again.
Clinton represented New York in the Senate and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was first nominated at New York City's Madison Square Garden in 1992. The couple lives in nearby Westchester County and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has promoted the Brooklyn convention site as a popular option for the party's liberal base.
The Clintons have deep ties to Philadelphia's organizers, including Mayor Michael Nutter and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. The city was the site of the 2000 Republican convention and its East Coast location and patriotic heritage as the home of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell could be a plus.
Columbus, meanwhile, would put Democrats in the center of the nation's top presidential battleground state and offer an in-state rebuttal to Republicans, who are holding their convention in Cleveland.
The winning bid is expected to be based on a number of factors, including the city's ability to raise an estimated $65 million or more along with the potential venues, hotels and transportation options for delegates, party activists and the media.
Birmingham, Alabama, and Phoenix, Arizona, had both offered out-of-the-box options. Alabama is a solidly Republican state and has not supported a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976, limiting its appeal. Democrats would like to turn Arizona into a presidential battleground state — the party has not carried it since 1996 — but some party activists have been critical of the state's approach to immigration enforcement.
Republicans are planning to hold their Cleveland convention beginning either June 27 or July 18. The DNC is keeping the July 18 week as an option but would hold it a different week if Republicans select a mid-July convention.
Politico: “Al Sharpton: Rand Paul’s outreach to blacks could hurt Democrats in 2016”
By Katie Glueck
November 24, 2014, 2:12 p.m. EST
The Rev. Al Sharpton says Rand Paul’s efforts to engage black voters could present a strategic challenge for Democrats: If the Republican senator runs for president, fewer African Americans may be motivated to show up and vote against him.
The civil rights activist and TV host had breakfast with the Kentucky senator last week, and the pair discussed the need for criminal justice reform before disagreeing over how to deal with the immigration system.
Democrats have traditionally done well among African American voters, especially with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. In 2016, Democrats will “need maximum black turnout in a lot of states,” Sharpton told POLITICO.
“What I think is more dangerous for Democrats is, if a guy like Paul is out there, if he becomes the nominee, for argument’s sake, he … does not generate a turnout against him” among African Americans, Sharpton said. He added, “If he’s able to neutralize his past image on civil rights, if he becomes the candidate … and if you don’t get a huge black turnout saying ‘We’re afraid [of him],’” that could be a pitfall for Democrats.
Sharpton pointed to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to engage the black community as an example. Bloomberg “didn’t get a lot of black votes … but because he reached out, a lot of blacks were not energized to come out and vote against him,” Sharpton said.
Paul came under fire in his 2010 Senate race for equivocating over whether the Civil Rights Act should apply to private businesses (he later stressed he would have voted for the measure). But he has made engaging minority communities a priority in recent years. He has called for restoration of voting rights for some non-violent felons; visited Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer fatally shot a black teenager; worked with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey on criminal justice reform and decried police militarization. He’s also called on the GOP to be more inclusive.
Sharpton stressed that he is not endorsing Paul, but suggested he was impressed with Paul’s efforts.
“Now that he’s [working] with Booker, going to Ferguson, having breakfast with Al Sharpton … he is beginning to demonstrate some very open, very consistent patterns of trying to broaden the framework of a potential candidacy,” Sharpton said. “I think he knows it’s unlikely someone like Al Sharpton would endorse him, but I can’t ignore him. He’s openly dealing with issues that [politicians] including people in the Democratic Party, haven’t done.”
Sharpton asked for the meeting, which was held in the Senate dining room, and said he was pleased that Paul was willing to get together in such a high-profile place. The reverend floated a possible invitation to his annual civil rights conference, and Paul did not rule out attending. The senator’s office confirmed that he is open to a possible appearance.
Sharpton added that Paul’s actions could put “a lot of pressure” even on Democrats such as Hillary Clinton — a potential 2016 frontrunner for the party — who have good records on civil rights.
“In this era of Ferguson and chokehold and the fact that we have the first black president leaving the White House, you can’t just go by record,” he said. “You gotta go by, as Janet Jackson used to say, ‘What have you done for me lately?’”
The Hill blog: Congress Blog: “Ex-Im helps Hillary's friends at Boeing, not women-owned firms”
By Veronique de Rugy and Andrea Castillo; de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Castillo is the program manager of the Technology Policy Program with the Mercatus Center.
November 24, 2014, 4:00 p.m. EST
Here’s some news that is sure to shock no one: Hillary Clinton is a big fan of the Export-Import Bank. During a recent address at a Little Rock event hosted by the No Ceilings Project, Clinton made a point to support the federal subsidizer of exporting multinational corporations.
The perpetual presidential hopeful told the crowd that the Ex-Im Bank is “a tool for us to be competitive in order to support our businesses exporting.” She claimed that those who oppose Ex-Im’s questionable lending practices to large, politically connected corporations are driven by ideology, not by evidence. Setting aside the fact that economists of all ideological backgrounds have amassed mountains of evidence that Ex-Im does not meaningfully improve U.S. exports or jobs, distorts international markets, and directly harms the 98 percent of unsubsidized workers, consumers, and exporters that don’t have friends in Washington, Hillary Clinton’s own support of Ex-Im isn’t exactly based on “evidence” either. In fact, Clinton maintains questionable political alliances with some of Ex-Im’s biggest beneficiaries.
First, it is ironic, and wildly out-of-touch, that Clinton should sing Ex-Im’s praises at an event dedicated to promoting equality for women and girls. Corporate interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce try to spin Ex-Im’s corporatist lending to politically favored firms by arguing that women-owned firms greatly benefit from Ex-Im. But the data show otherwise.
Ex-Im assistance to women-owned firms barely makes a dent as a portion of the total economy. The roughly 200 women-owned firms that Ex-Im backs each year constitute a mere 1 percent of the total 20,000 women-owned firms in the entire U.S. economy. The same is true when you look at export value backed: The $403.5 million in Ex-Im-backed export value for women-owned firms is a mere 3 percent of the roughly $15 billion in export value produced by all women-owned firms in the economy.
Nor is Ex-Im’s portfolio significantly dedicated to the cause of women. Only 1.02 percent of Ex-Im authorizations and 5.8 percent of the Ex-Im firms backed from 2007 to 2014 are marked as “women-owned.” Then there’s the inconvenient fact that only 3 of Ex-Im’s 44 presidents and chairmen have been women. By all accounts, it appears that the patriarchy is alive and well down at the Export-Import Bank.
This all assumes that Ex-Im’s women-owned firm assistance data is accurate. Recently, Reuters released a bombshell report revealing that hundreds of firms that Ex-Im records designated as “small business” firms are in reality huge corporations owned by billionaires like Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim. This means that at least $3 billion in authorizations, or 8 percent of Ex-Im’s portfolio, have been improperly categorized as small business lending. While the Reuters report did not analyze the accuracy of Ex-Im’s women-owned lending, it is possible that much of this portfolio reached less than the “100 percent accuracy” that an Ex-Im representative admitted was “unacceptable.”
Reuters concludes that Ex-Im’s misleading reporting is a “primarily political” problem. So is Hillary Clinton’s support of the bank. In April of this year, Clinton’s questionable relationship with Ex-Im’s top beneficiary, the Boeing Corporation, was revealed. The Washington Post reported that while serving as Secretary of State, Clinton “functioned as a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image.”
Although the State Department had developed ethics guidelines against assisting Boeing because of its “frequent reliance on the government for help negotiating overseas business,” Clinton ignored these prohibitions and negotiated a $2 million deal with the aerospace giant to host a pavilion at the World’s Fair. Shortly after Clinton shepherded a $3.7 billion aircraft purchase deal between Boeing and the Russian government in 2010—characterized in her own words as “a shameless pitch … to buy Boeing aircraft”— Boeing announced it would contribute $900,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation.
More recently, Boeing’s Senior Vice President for Government Relations, Tim Keating, worked for the Ready for Hillary Super PAC, along with an “an array of well-connected Democratic lobbyists and politicos.” In her memoir, Clinton writes that she considered her role as Secretary of State to be as an “advocate-in-chief” for American corporations like Boeing, Caterpillar, and General Electric, two other top Ex-Im beneficiaries. Clearly, Clinton’s support of Ex-Im stems from her cozy relationships with some of the U.S.’s most powerful corporations, not average Americans and certainly not women and girls.
While Hillary Clinton and Boeing’s relationship may be “mutually beneficial,” the Export-Import Bank is certainly of no benefit to the average American. The bank imposes annual net costs of $3 billion on U.S. industries that are not subsidized by Ex-Im, is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost taxpayers $2 billion over the next decade, and privileges politically connected corporations over everyone else. If opposing Clinton’s brand of corporatism and political opportunism makes one an “ideologue,” then who would want to be anything else?
Calendar:
Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.
· December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of Conservation Voters dinner (Politico)
· December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW)
· December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico)
· February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire)