Clinton teases possible 2016 campaign at abortion group's gala

WASHINGTON –  Hillary Clinton on Tuesday credited women with making a difference at all levels of government, asking an audience of female Democrats, "Don't you someday want to see a woman president?"
On the cusp of a second presidential campaign, the former secretary of state previewed some of the economic themes that could animate an upcoming race, pointing to an economy that too often fails to address the challenges faced by families and working mothers.
"We have to get our economy to reflect the realities of 21st century America, and we're not doing that," Clinton said at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, an organization that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. "We're not doing that when the hard work of men and women across our country is not rewarded with rising wages, but CEO pay goes up and up no matter what."
Clinton's 30-minute address was punctuated by references to her future. She noted that during one's life, "you get a chance to make millions of decisions. Some of them are big, like 'Do you run for office?'"
Looking out at the ballroom of female Democrats, Clinton asked if they were hopeful of seeing more women running for local offices like school board member, governor, mayor and member of Congress. "I suppose it's only fair to say, 'Don't you someday want to see a woman president?'" she asked, generating loud applause.
Clinton steered clear of questions that emerged Tuesday about her use of a personal email account instead of a government-issued email address during her time as secretary of state. Republicans seized on the disclosures, accusing her of violating a law intended to archive official government documents. GOP officials have also amplified reports that the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments ahead of an expected Clinton campaign.
"It speaks volumes that Hillary Clinton will gladly attend fancy galas yet continue to hide from the American people," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Allison Moore. She said voters deserved to know "why she only used private email while serving as secretary of state at the same time the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments who were lobbying her State Department."
In her speech, Clinton accused Republicans of fostering policies promoting "trickle-down economics" but noted that both parties have spoken of ways to boost wages for middle-class workers. "We welcome them to come with their ideas and we will match them," Clinton said of the Republicans. "That's what elections should be about. Elections should be a contest of ideas."
The prospect of a Clinton campaign was invoked repeatedly by political leaders who have worked with the fundraising powerhouse, whose name is an acronym for "Early money is like yeast." The organization has a strong track record in Democratic politics, electing more than 100 women to the U.S. House, 19 to the Senate, 10 governors and more than 500 state and local officials.
"She's more than an idol," said Stephanie Schriock, EMILY's List's president, describing Clinton. "She's an inspiration — and a leader whose talents we desperately need."
The event brought to the stage Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the group's first endorsed candidate who recently announced her retirement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was gravely wounded in a deadly 2011 shooting during a political event at a Tucson, Arizona, shopping mall.
Giffords said female leaders deliver results, in places like city hall, state houses, governor's mansions and Congress, "and maybe soon, in the White House."
The organization has helped lay the groundwork for a potential Clinton campaign, holding events to promote the possibility of electing the nation's first female president and commissioning polling.
Ellen Malcolm, the founder of EMILY's List, pointed to Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign as the first step, bringing the audience to their feet when she identified 2016 as the "time to shatter that glass ceiling and put a woman in the White House." Clinton, seated in the audience, laughed and clapped along with the crowd.
"Hillary, you heard us," Malcolm said. "Just give us the word and we'll be right at your side."

As Supreme Court takes up ObamaCare, GOP offers alternatives, Dems warn of 'massive damage’

Congressional Republicans are proposing long and short-term alternatives to ObamaCare as the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments Wednesday in a case that has the potential to unravel the health care law.
The plaintiffs, four Virginia residents, argue that Americans who bought insurance through the federal ObamaCare exchange are not entitled to subsidies because the law says only those who bought policies in state exchanges are eligible.
At least 5.5 million Americans last year bought insurance on the federal exchange and received the subsidies.
Both sides in the case -- known as King v. Burwell -- generally agree that if the high court decides that millions of recipients are no longer eligible, they likely will no longer be able to afford insurance under ObamaCare and exit the system.
However, whether their departure would topple the entire health care law remains a matter of debate ahead of the expected high court ruling by June.
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said nullifying the subsidies would cause "massive damage to our health care system" and that the administration would have no way to fix it.
The administration and Democrats who enacted the 2010 law over unanimous GOP opposition also largely back studies showing the number of people who would loses the subsidies, in the form of tax credits, is as high as 7.5 million.
And a recent analysis by the health care firm Avalere found that those who would lose their subsidies as a result of the court ruling would have their premiums increase an average 225 percent.
Ed Haislmaier, a health care policy expert with the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, on Tuesday predicated some fallout, or “dislocation’ but not to such an extent.
“Is the sky going to fall?” he asked. “No, but it’s probably going to rain in some places.”
Several top Capitol Hill Republicans have in the past few days announced pending, short-term alternatives if the court invalidates the subsidies for residents of the 34 states that use the federal ObamaCare exchange, not their own.
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week that his plan will set the stage for a “more permanent fix” but did not provide specifics.
On Sunday, Hatch was joined by fellow GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Barrasso of Wyoming in a Washington Post opinion piece saying they have a plan.
“We would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked,” the senators wrote. "It would be unfair to allow families to lose their coverage, particularly in the middle of the year."
However, they also provided no specifics on how to pay for the lost subsidies -- estimated at $36.1 billion.
Most of the 34 states in question are GOP-run and represented in Congress by Republicans.
On Tuesday, an opinion offering by Reps. John Kline, R-Minn., Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., appeared in The Wall Street Journal also presenting alternatives - but in more detail.
“No family should pay for this administration’s overreach,” the congressmen, chairmen, respectively, of the House committees on Education and Workforce, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce wrote.
“That is why House Republicans have formed a working group to propose a way out for the affected states if the court rules against the administration.”
The congressmen said their ObamaCare “off-ramp” will in part allow states to opt out of coverage requirements that are driving up costs, let Americans buy the policies they want and make insurers compete for customers, rather than force Americans to buy a government-approved health plan “under the threat of IRS fines.”

State Department says Netanyahu twisted Kerry's words in speech to Congress

Dems Trying to make him into the Bad Guy?

The State Department accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of taking congressional testimony by Secretary of State John Kerry out of context in Netanyahu's address to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday.
In a statement released early Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki quoted in full an article written on the website FactCheck.org that claimed certain remarks made by Netanyahu about Iran's nuclear program "misrepresented what Kerry had said" in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Feb. 25.
In his address, Netanyahu said Kerry had disclosed that Iran could "legitimately posses" 190,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium by the time a deal designed to restrict Iran's nuclear capability for a decade would expire. The Israeli leader, who referred to Kerry as "my long-time friend" in his speech, said that amount of centrifuges could put Iran "weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy."
However, the FactCheck.org article circulated by Psaki noted that Kerry had only said that a peaceful nuclear power program could use that same number of centrifuges.
"[I]f you have a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you could have as many as 190,000 or more centrifuges," Kerry told committee members.
Later in his speech, Netanyahu described the proposed agreement as one that "doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.
"So why would anyone make this deal?" the prime minister asked. "Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse? Well, I disagree."
The State Department statement was the latest salvo in an ongoing war of words that marked the run-up to Netanyahu's address and climaxed with harsh criticism for the Israeli leader from congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who branded the speech an "insult to the intelligence of the United States."
President Obama himself told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he didn't watch Netanyahu's address but read the transcript and it contained "nothing new." Obama claimed the prime minister did not offer any "viable alternatives" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
As Netanyahu spoke Tuesday, Kerry was holding a three-hour negotiating session with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in the Swiss resort of Montreux in hopes of completing an international framework agreement to curb Tehran's nuclear program. However, in that same Feb. 25 hearing, Kerry said Netanyahu "may have a judgment that just may not be correct here" in initially opposing an interim agreement reached this past November.
Negotiators from the so-called P5+1 countries, a group which includes the U.S., Britain, Russia, China, Germany, and France, are scrambling to meet a March 31 deadline to finalize the framework of a permanent deal, with a July deadline for a final agreement.
During his speech, Netanyahu urged negotiators to keep pressuring with economic sanctions because Tehran needs the deal most.
"Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff," Netanyahu said. "They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do."
In a sign that Netanyahu's speech was resonating outside the chamber of the House of Representatives, Zarif decried comments that President Barack Obama made on Monday — as part of an administration-wide effort to push back on the Israeli's criticism — in which he said that Iran would have to suspend its nuclear activities for at least a decade as part of any final agreement.
Zarif, in a statement quoted by Iran's official news agency IRNA, said Obama's remarks were "unacceptable and threatening," aimed at attracting U.S. public opinion while reacting to Netanyahu "and other extremist opponents of the talks."
For his part, Kerry told reporters Tuesday that both sides were "working away, productively."

Iran Cartoon

Hillary 5.0: Why rebranding Clinton for 2016 race may be impossible

Obama Jr.

If, as The Washington Post recently reported, a new attempt by “marketing wizards” to “rebrand” Hillary Clinton is “focused on developing imaginative ways to let ‘Hillary be Hillary,’” then Mrs. Clinton and her presumed 2016 presidential campaign are in deep trouble.
That’s because when “Hillary is Hillary,” all kinds of contradictions and causes for mistrust arise.
The Washington Post wrote that, “Clinton’s words suggest that her 2016 campaign will stress economic fairness.” But consider Mrs. Clinton’s words, in a “thought leadership” lecture at UCLA. Mrs. Clinton said, “Businesses have taken advantage of unpaid internships to an extent that it is blocking the opportunities for young people to move on into paid employment.”

When “Hillary is Hillary,” all kinds of contradictions and causes for mistrust arise.

What the fawning mainstream media has missed is that the Clinton Global Initiative (part of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), in conducting its business, has taken advantage of unpaid interns, as the interns themselves testify.
Here are some of the comments from CGI interns from the website Glassdoor, which screens and then allows current and former employees to anonymously review their workplaces and managements.
“It is hypocritical that a non-profit that supports economic growth does not pay their interns and treat[s] them terribly.”
“No opportunities for advancement.”
“It is also unpaid, meaning the intern pool is filled with mostly well off folks, creating some tension among the intern pool.”
To be fair -- which Mrs. Clinton isn’t, while she hypocritically condemns corporations for doing exactly what she or “Clinton Inc.” does—the unpaid intern comments about CGI include positive remarks, such as this:
“Since the opportunity is unpaid, they compensate by offering a ton of networking and professional development opportunities!”
Back when she was a U.S. senator, Mrs. Clinton not only joined many of her Democratic and Republican colleagues in using unpaid interns, but, as The Washington Free Beacon revealed, between 2002-2008 “women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.” Also, “During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man.”
Commenting on those pay disparities, Rosie Perez, a co-host on ABC’s The View said, “I have to be honest that, you know, I love Hillary and I was shocked. I was shocked. I was like, oh, no, this doesn't look good. This does not look good.”
In fact, there are legitimate explanations for unpaid internships and for pay differences between men and women. The trade-offs for unpaid internships often include experience and networking opportunities. And, as many studies have shown, wage gaps between men and women are largely accounted for by factors such as women choosing to work fewer hours, time taken off to have children or care for them, differences in education, and willingness to work at risky or high-pressure jobs.
But you won’t hear Mrs. Clinton speaking about that. It would ruin her “unfairness” demagoguery. Meantime, speaking of unfairness and compensation, Mrs. Clinton and her “rebranders” are grappling with a rash of conflict of interest, cronyism and questionable use issues surrounding Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
As Fox News reported, “The Clinton Foundation was on the defensive…after disclosing that it had accepted millions of dollars from several foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, including one donation that violated the foundation's ethics agreement with the Obama administration.” And, as The Washington Examiner wrote, “The New York Times editorial board, which can hardly be described as right-leaning, wrote that the foundation needed to ‘reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders’ favoritism, should [Hillary] run for and win the White House.’”
The New York Times has also written that Mrs. Clinton’s “advisers say she can be expected to weave gender into matters of economic fairness and opportunity.” This will come in different forms: pushing the “barrier breaking” narrative of electing her as the first American woman president, but softening her hard-edged image with “frequent references to being a mother and grandmother,” and “present[ing] herself as a sensitive candidate capable of nurturing the nation at a difficult time.”
The real test of Mrs. Clinton’s “rebranding” is a test of authenticity. After decades in the public spotlight, will the “new, improved, rebranded” Hillary Clinton seem authentic or will her repackaging be transparent as just her latest image reinvention in her quest for power? Will voters buy what The Washington Post headlined “The making of Hillary 5.0” as real or merely political role-playing that serves her ambition but does not serve the best interests of America?
Indeed, when a “truth and trust” test is applied to “the making of Hillary 5.0,” the most relevant question may be a variation on one Mrs. Clinton used in her testimony about Benghazi: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Hillary Clinton's use of private email address while Secretary of State draws scrutiny

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal e-mail account to exclusively conduct official business during her time at the State Department, a move that raises questions about access to the full archive of her correspondence, as well as the possibility that she violated federal law requiring official messages to be retained for the record.
The existence of the account was discovered by the House select committee investigating the deadly 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and was first reported by The New York Times.
Clinton did not even have a government e-mail address during her tenure as America's top diplomat, which lasted from 2009 to 2013, and The Times reports that her aides took no action to preserve her emails on department servers, as required by the Federal Records Act.
Instead, the paper reports, Clinton's advisers selected which of her emails to turn over to the State Department for archival purposes after going through tens of thousands of pages of correspondence. The department said late Monday that it had received 55,000 pages of Clinton's emails as part of a request made to previous secretaries of state to turn over any official documents they may have had in their possession.
It is not clear how many total emails from that period were in Clinton's personal account, nor is it clear how Clinton's advisers decided which emails to hand over to the State Department.
Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, told The Times that the former Secretary of State expected that emails to State Department officials would be preserved. The fate of emails to foreign leaders, private citizens, and non-State Department officials is unclear.
"The State Department has long had access to a wide array of Secretary Clinton’s records -- including emails between her and Department officials with state.gov accounts," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf told Fox News late Monday. Harf added that the department turned over about 300 emails to the Benghazi select committee, and noted that Clinton's successor as Secretary of State, John Kerry, "is the first ... to rely primarily on a state.gov e-mail account."
Records officials interviewed by The Times expressed grave concern over Clinton's practice, saying it represents a severe ethical breach and noting that personal e-mail accounts are far less secure than official ones.
Jason Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives, told the paper he found it "very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private e-mail communications channel for the conduct of government business." Baron added that the use of private e-mail accounts is meant to be reserved only for emergencies, such as when a department's server is not working or compromised.
However, The Times reports that the imposition of penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare because the National Archives has so few enforcement mechanisms.
The report has drawn heavy criticism from Republicans, including at least one potential challenger in the 2016 presidential race. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who released 250,000 emails from his gubernatorial tenure this past December, tweeted about the contrast between his disclosures and Clinton's secrecy. 

Chicago credit downgrade hangs over Emanuel's mayoral runoff race

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s already struggling reelection bid has suffered another potential hit, with a fresh credit downgrade giving political ammunition to his runoff rival.
Moody's Investors Service last week downgraded the city’s credit rating, citing $20 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The agency lowered the rating on $8.3 billion in general obligation debt to near junk bond status and issued a cautious forecast about the city’s longer-term financial future.
The news comes as Emanuel, a former chief of staff to President Obama, heads into a runoff for a second term, after failing to get 50 percent in the Feb. 24 election. He faces Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, who finished second in the four-man race.
"The Moody's downgrade is yet another sign that Emanuel's financial priorities are simply wrong," said Garcia campaign manager Andrew Sharp. "It's time for change."
The credit-rating downgrade, from a Baa1 to Baa2, means that Chicago, the country’s third-largest city, will have to pay more to borrow money in the future.
Chicago has the worst-funded pension system of any major U.S. city, with the roughly $20 billion hole spread across four accounts.
Legislation approved last year seeks to eliminate a $9.4 billion shortfall in two of those pension systems by cutting benefits and increasing contributions for both the city and employees.
But Emanuel's pension overhaul is being challenged in the courts by retirees and public labor unions, which contributed to Moody’s also issuing the cautious outlook.
"Regardless of outcome of the legal challenges to pension reforms, we expect Chicago's unfunded pension liabilities -- and the costs of servicing those liabilities -- to continue to grow, placing significant strain on the city's financial operations," Moody's said.
Emanuel and Garcia, a fellow Democrat, are headed for an April 7 runoff.
Democratic strategist Philip Molfese said Monday he doesn’t think the downgrade will have a big impact on the race because voters are more interested in deciding which candidate presents the best opportunity to achieve the goal of having a "world-class city."
“It’s two Chicagos,” he said. “This race is fundamentally about becoming a world-class city and the path to that in which people don’t get left behind.”
Molfese pointed out that Garcia is considered a grassroots candidate, compared with Emanuel “who might be seen as somebody who looks to experts.”
But either way, he said, Chicago leaders have to hastily continue to reduce violent crime “because obviously the rate is not fast enough for anybody.”
The Emanuel campaign is trying to downplay the Moody’s report, saying other ratings services have reaffirmed Chicago's bond rating and citing Emanuel's moves "in righting the city's fiscal ship."
"The action by Moody's underscores the need to have a mayor who is willing to take on our challenges and level with Chicagoans, not try to distract them with empty rhetoric," said Emanuel campaign spokesman Steve Mayberry.
City Treasurer Kurt Summers said Emanuel has made significant progress in addressing the pension challenges without unfairly burdening taxpayers.
Moody's said action is needed to stop the debt from growing. The agency said commitments to increasing tax revenue or cutting costs could also prompt it to boost Chicago's rating.
However, Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, told the Chicago Tribune it was difficult to see how the next administration would manage the crisis "without significant new revenue or dramatic reductions in city services."
"Decades of pension underfunding, failure of the General Assembly to provide pension reform, and the city of Chicago's years of reliance on debt to fund operations have put the city in this financial position," he said.

Netanyahu ready to take Iran case to Congress in controversial speech

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday will make his case to Congress – and the American people – for why a pending nuclear agreement with Iran would risk his country’s security, in a controversial address that is drawing immense interest.
House Speaker John Boehner’s office, which invited the Israeli leader to give the address, says the demand for tickets is the highest for any such event since Boehner took over.
“The demand for tickets – from both Republicans and Democrats – is unprecedented, and has far outweighed their availability,” Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said.
Though some Democrats are sitting out the speech in protest, demand for tickets is still so high that both the House and Senate have set up alternative viewing locations, according to Boehner’s office.
However no member of the administration was expected to be present.
When asked if Daniel Shapiro, the American ambassador to Israel, would attend Netanyahu's speech, a State Department official told Fox News, "No member of the administration is attending."
On Monday, Netanyahu warned in a speech to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington that a potential nuclear deal with Iran "could threaten the survival of Israel."
As he kicked off a contentious visit to the United States meant to build the case against such an agreement, the Israeli leader underscored the dangers he said are posed by Iran, which he called the world's "foremost sponsor of state terrorism."
"Iran envelops the entire world with its tentacles of terror," he said, displaying a map showing various connections between Iran and terror groups. He warned Iran could pursue Israel's destruction if it obtained a nuclear weapon.
"We must not let that happen," Netanyahu said.
Both the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, as a matter of policy, agree that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon. But the Israeli leader has concerns that the framework of the current diplomatic talks could lead to an ineffective deal.
President Obama, speaking in an interview Monday night with Reuters on the eve of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, acknowledged the shared goal, then added Netanyahu “thinks that the best way to do that is either through doubling down on more sanctions or through military action, ensuring that Iran has absolutely no enrichment capabilities whatsoever…
“What we've said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime, what we can do is bring Iran to the table.”
He added, “there’s no good reason for us not to let the negotiations play themselves out.”
Despite Obama saying he believed Netanyahu was “sincere about his concerns with respect to Iran,” the Israeli leader’s address to Congress on Tuesday has become the source of immense tension between the two governments.
The speech was arranged at the invitation of Boehner, but without the president’s involvement.
Some Democrats plan to boycott that speech, and Obama has no plans to meet with the prime minister -- although the White House insists this is out of a desire not to appear to be influencing upcoming Israeli elections.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Monday this is the "worst" he's ever seen the U.S.-Israel relationship. He claimed critics are acting "in such a hysterical fashion" because they're concerned Netanyahu will make a "compelling argument" against the pending Iran agreement.
Netanyahu, though, stressed Monday that the alliance is "stronger than ever" despite the current disagreement, as he gently mocked the recent media coverage.
"Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn't been given," he said. Netanyahu also said he meant no "disrespect" to Obama or his office in agreeing to address Congress. He said he "deeply" appreciates all Obama has done for Israel and did not intend to "inject Israel into the American partisan debate."
But he said he had a "moral obligation" to speak up about the dangers Israel faces, and stressed that these dangers are, for his country, a matter of "survival."
The prime minister's address was bracketed by speeches from two senior U.S. officials: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
Power, who spoke Monday morning, tried to ease tensions and offer assurances of the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. She said that partnership "transcends politics" and always will.
She also stressed that diplomacy with Iran is the "preferred route" but the U.S. will keep its security commitments.
Rice, speaking Monday night, said the U.S. was seeking a deal that would cut off "every single pathway" Iran has to producing a nuclear weapon,” adding that Obama keeps all options on the table for blocking Tehran's pursuit of a bomb and declaring that "a bad deal is worse than no deal."
Still, Rice warned against holding out for "unachievable" outcomes, such as getting Iran to fully end domestic enrichment.
"As desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic or achievable," she said. "If that is our goal, our partners will abandon us."
Netanyahu considers unacceptable any deal that does not entirely end Iran's nuclear program. But Obama is willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon. Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday afternoon again touted the U.S.-Israel bond, and stressed that options remain on the table -- including a military option -- if Iran does not comply with any nuclear agreement.
He continued to give the chances for a deal a "50-50" shot, citing lingering questions over whether Iran's political leadership would sign off on one.