Subject: ​Correct The Record Wednesday September 10, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:24:35 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday September 10, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The Hill opinion: James Carville: “GOP’s Benghazi meter does not read
victory”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/james-carville/217201-carville-gops-benghazi-meter-does-not-read-victory>*

“All of these reports have debunked the GOP’s favorite play: that Clinton,
as secretary of State, issued a ‘stand-down order’ to U.S. military
personnel on the night of the attack.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to headline DCCC fundraiser”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-headline-dccc-fundraiser-110764.html?hp=l8_b1>*

“Hillary Clinton will headline a high-dollar fundraiser for the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee later this month, the second event she is
holding for the group as it heads into the final stretch of the midterms.”

*CNN: “Hoping for '16 payoff, Ready for Hillary greases midterm wheels”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/clinton-email-swaps-2016/index.html>*

“Ready for Hillary, a super PAC founded by Hillary Clinton devotees, has
started to grease the wheels of state politics, currying favor with local
Democrats by exchanging important data about the group's supporters with
Senate and House campaigns ahead of the 2014 midterms.”

*Talking Points Memo: Dylan Scott: “No, Clinton's Frontrunner Status Has
Nothing To Do With Her Gender”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/chuck-todd-hillary-2016?utm_content=bufferdd5a8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

“Clinton's resume -- U.S. senator, secretary of state and prominent White
House adviser (to de-gender her time as First Lady) -- would historically
be enough to put her in the top tier of presidential candidates heading
into 2016 regardless of gender, James Hilty, a presidential historian at
Temple University, told TPM.”

*The Hill: “GOP’s Benghazi committee prepares for media spotlight”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/news/217206-gops-benghazi-committee-prepares-for-media-spotlight>*

“Secretary of State John Kerry is refusing to appear, and Republicans
haven’t said whether they will seek testimony from Hillary Clinton, who was
in charge at Foggy Bottom the night of the deadly assault.”

*The Hill: “Clinton allies distance ‘decisive’ Hillary from ‘passive’
Obama”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/news/217216-clinton-allies-distance-decisive-hillary-from-passive-obama>*

“As Obama seeks to make the case for military action against the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria in a prime-time address on Wednesday, Clinton
supporters are saying that she would have approached the battle with ISIS
in a completely different way if she were commander in chief.”

*Wall Street Journal: “Hillary Clinton’s Approval Numbers Return to Earth —
WSJ/NBC Poll”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/09/hillary-clintons-approval-numbers-return-to-earth-wsjnbc-poll/>*

“The more Hillary Clinton looks like a candidate, the less invincible she
appears.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers come back down to earth”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-come-back-down-earth>*

“Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings continue to tumble as she renters
the political fray, with 43% of respondents now saying they view her
positively, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, down from
a high of 60% in 2009.”

*Washington Post column: Dana Milbank: “Bill Clinton and George Bush pal
up”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-bill-clinton-and-george-bush-pal-up/2014/09/08/244c91a0-379f-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html>*

“Now it can be told: Bill Clinton was a secret adviser to George W. Bush.”

*The Hill blog: Heath Brown: “Why Podesta might chair Clinton's transition,
not the campaign”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/217196-why-podesta-might-chair-clintons-transition-not-the-campaign>*

“Given the gravity of transition planning, Podesta is an obvious choice.”

*Articles:*

*The Hill opinion: James Carville: “GOP’s Benghazi meter does not read
victory”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/james-carville/217201-carville-gops-benghazi-meter-does-not-read-victory>*

By James Carville

September 9, 2014, 7:39 p.m. EDT

Just a tiny bit over a year ago I wrote a column for this publication
indicating that the Republicans had not been right about a single thing so
far this century. Sports gamblers have a name for when you don’t win a
single bet over a weekend — it’s called the “0fer” — and a year later, we
can add several more Republican predictions that continue the Grand Old
Party’s streak of being 100 percent wrong.

Much has been made in the last year about the threats of ObamaCare, ranging
from massive private and public sector layoffs to exploding premiums, and
none of it has come true. Well, the House Republicans refuse to quit or
accept reality. And while football season has just started, the right
wing’s big bet — the Benghazi Bowl — is coming to an end. Since 2012
they’ve been playing political football with the national tragedy that
killed four Americans. And they’re about to lose this big bet.

You see, the Republicans assembled a team of all-stars. They wanted to have
their best players all together, for one ball game, to defeat Team Hillary
Clinton. From Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul to California Rep. Darrell Issa to
South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, they’ve had a strong team. But their
problem all along hasn’t been the team, it’s been the goal of the game
they’re playing — to derail President Obama, his administration and
especially Clinton.

Two years later, let’s take a look at the box score on Benghazi:

• nine congressional committees;

• 13 public hearings;

• dozens of interviews;

• 50 senior level staff briefings;

• more than 25,000 pages of documents;

• three independent/bipartisan reports (with one more forthcoming);

• zero evidence of political wrongdoing.

Despite all this, House Republicans have begged for a 10th congressional
committee to investigate, in an attempt to score some points late in the
game. After months of holding the line, Senator John Boehner (R-Ohio)
caved, and in May announced the formation of the House Select Committee on
Benghazi, which is expected to cost America’s hard-working taxpayers more
than $3 million.

Team GOP has been gearing up for its biggest game of the season next week,
when the Select Committee will hold its first hearing. But with seconds
left on the clock, Team GOP has a full 99 yards to go.

The truth has been revealed over and over again, and all of the questions
have been answered. No matter how hard they try, they can’t beat the facts.

Reports from the three investigations that have taken place — the
Accountability Review Board, the Senate Homeland Security and Government
Oversight Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — have
all blocked Team GOP’s goal. Just last month, we heard the results from the
fourth bipartisan investigation, from the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, which reportedly confirmed there was no deliberate
wrongdoing there.

All of these reports have debunked the GOP’s favorite play: that Clinton,
as secretary of State, issued a “stand-down order” to U.S. military
personnel on the night of the attack. Even the Republican-led House Armed
Services Committee Report confirmed that Clinton did not issue any such
order.

But Team GOP keeps trying this same play. Just this week, with the release
of the new book, 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in
Benghazi, I have seen countless conservative news sites, politicians, and
newsmakers claim victory at last.

This latest book, constructed from firsthand accounts, has all but put a
fork in Team GOP’s hopes to defeat Clinton. The book alleges that a
“stand-down order” was given ... and once again, Hillary Clinton isn’t
anywhere near it, deflating the one remaining conspiracy theory Hail Mary
they had.

First of all, the secretary of State did not have control over our
country’s military assets on that tragic night, or any other for that
matter. Second, while Issa said “Secretary Clinton told Leon [Panetta, then
secretary of Defense] to stand down,” this paints a different picture. The
work of the Accountability Review Board, the Homeland Security and
Government Oversight Committee, the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence all lead to the simple fact that Clinton
did not issue a “stand down order.”

As the final seconds of the Benghazi Bowl tick off the clock, Team GOP has
fumbled the ball in its own end zone.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to headline DCCC fundraiser”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-headline-dccc-fundraiser-110764.html?hp=l8_b1>*

By Maggie Haberman

September 9, 2014, 1:48 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton will headline a high-dollar fundraiser for the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee later this month, the second event she is
holding for the group as it heads into the final stretch of the midterms.

The luncheon event is set for Sept. 29, according to an invitation obtained
by POLITICO. It will be in New York City at Le Parker Meridien hotel, a few
blocks from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

DCCC Chairman Steve Israel and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also are
listed on the invitation.

Hillary Clinton will headline a second event in San Francisco, Pelosi’s
home district, in October. Bill Clinton headlined an event for the DCCC
earlier this month.

*CNN: “Hoping for '16 payoff, Ready for Hillary greases midterm wheels”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/clinton-email-swaps-2016/index.html>*

By Dan Merica

September 10, 2014, 6:03 a.m. EDT

Ready for Hillary, a super PAC founded by Hillary Clinton devotees, has
started to grease the wheels of state politics, currying favor with local
Democrats by exchanging important data about the group's supporters with
Senate and House campaigns ahead of the 2014 midterms.

The list exchanges are a clear attempt by the super PAC to build goodwill
and to win over state parties ahead of a possible Clinton presidential run
in 2016.

To date, the PAC has exchanged records with campaigns in 14 different
states: Six U.S. Senate campaigns, four House races, four gubernatorial
campaigns and three Democratic committees and organizations, according to a
person familiar with the list swaps.

In return, Ready for Hillary is receiving data from each campaign and
growing their list of possible volunteers and donors ahead of 2016.

Representatives from the group declined to name specific campaigns with
which they have swapped names, citing confidentially agreements with each
campaign.

Ready for Hillary has built the list a number of ways.

Supporters become part of the group's voter file when they give a donation
or attend an event put on by the group. The PAC has held over 500 events
across the country -- the majority of which were in early presidential
primary and caucus states. All of those names, emails and phone numbers,
along with some other details, go into the Ready for Hillary voter file.

Although seemingly simple, there is power in the names. Some political data
experts argue a good data file is worth more than donations.

A former state party data director, who asked for anonymity to speak
candidly, said getting names from a national organization is an "enormously
helpful."

"State parties almost never have the money to do this on their own," the
official said. "State parties need national folks to do it."

CNN asked a number of state parties and Senate campaigns to confirm whether
they swapped names with Clinton. All failed to respond.

The swaps are more than just currying favor, too. They are also an attempt
by Ready for Hillary -- a group that has been criticized by some Democrats
for focusing too much on 2016's presidential election -- to quell those
concerns and help Democrats in 2014.

*More valuable than money*

Democrats face a difficult map in the 2014 midterms. Winning back control
of the House has all but become a pipe dream and the party is focused on
maintaining control of the Senate -- an endeavor that may prove difficult.

In turn, campaigns and state parties are looking for as much help as they
can get. One such way is to provide campaigns with a list of politically
engaged voters and volunteers in their area.

Anthony Corrado, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and expert on
campaign finance, said "These names are increasingly as valuable as a
contribution."

"Campaigns are starting to realize that good names are more important than
just having more dollars to spend on television," said Corrado, who also is
a professor of government at Colby College. "These names become people who
can do the important things that campaigns can't necessarily buy."

Lists are an important, yet complex, aspect of campaigns. Once cultivated
by an organization, they can be traded, sold or rented to different groups.
Each list is worth a certain amount of money, too, which is given by
third-party companies that house each data set.

Corrado said the practice is becoming more common as power of online
campaigning grows. In Ready for

Hillary's case, lists are traded "on a one-for-one basis" for "equal
value," according to a person familiar with the list swaps.

Good data lists do more than just activate voters and raise money. The most
up-to-date voter lists connect supporters to their social media accounts
and can be used to engage people through their friends and family.

One senior Democratic source who has worked with data at the highest levels
said this amount of detail can be critical for a campaign's messaging.

"I would argue that in this era of declining trust in politicians and
political ads, the validation that comes from your friends is critical,"
the source said.

Democrats have held a data advantage over Republicans for the better part
of the last 10 years and President Barack Obama showed in 2008 and 2012 how
critical understanding voters and the data around them can be to winning
the White House.

In order to win the White House in 2016 -- should she run -- Clinton will
have to tap back into the Democratic advantage.

Bernie Sanders runs to left of Clinton Hillary Clinton's long summer
Clinton: Proud I served with Obama

*Swaps help Ready for Hillary... and Hillary*

List development and swapping is a practice that dates all the way back to
the Watergate era and has traditionally been done by campaign committees or
leadership PACs.

But Hillary Clinton's possible 2016 candidacy is unique. Clinton was out of
domestic politics for four years while she served as secretary of state and
does not have a leadership PAC within her direct control, as is the case
for other possible 2016 candidates.

Enter Ready for Hillary, a group of outside supporters, former aides and
excited young staffers who have spent the last year holding events across
the country for a candidate who has yet to even announce her intentions.

When it was founded in 2013, the group had two primary goals: Urge the
former secretary of state to run for president and collect a massive amount
of voter data to help that endeavor.

But with time and backing from prominent former Clinton aides, Ready for
Hillary has grown in popularity and its goals have evolved.

The group, though, has faced some skepticism since its founding. Early on,
some questioned Ready for Hillary's goals and its ties to Clinton. More
recently, some Democrats have worried that the group was causing key voters
to overlook 2014 in favor of 2016.

Seth Bringman, Ready for Hillary's spokesman, disagrees with the latter
criticism. "From the moment our organization was created, we have sought
ways to channel the massive enthusiasm around a potential Hillary 2016
campaign into helping Democratic efforts this year," Bringman told CNN.

But words only go so far and the PAC is trying to counter questions with
actions.

Ready for Hillary has kept eight regional staff throughout the country,
including two staffers in California, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia.
These staffers connect with local parties and attend party conventions and
meetings, regularly with checks in hand to donate from the PAC.

Since May, Ready for Hillary has donated thousands of dollars to 29
different state parties, according to a source with the group. Most of
these donations were upwards of $10,000, the max the group can give to a
state party.

But don't expect Ready for Hillary to stay focused too long on the midterms.

Just days after voters go to the polls this November, Ready for Hillary
will hold a strategy session in New York City for its top donors. The event
is being billed as the "premier opportunity" for supporters to "come
together and meet one another while we wait to hear what Hillary will
decide."

And the list that Ready for Hillary has been swapping is also a key piece
to the group's 2016 strategy. Multiple people close to Ready for Hillary
acknowledge quietly that the super PAC will likely sell, rent or swap with
a hypothetical Clinton campaign.

The name swaps also help if Clinton decides to run.

The former first lady is the prohibitive to be the Democrats' presidential
nominee in 2016. She has the highest name recognition and is ahead in every
poll.

What she will need to do over the next year if runs: Win over the state
politicos and parties.

While it is sometimes hard to believe that a few names, phone numbers and
emails can curry favor among state parties, according to multiple big data
experts, the names can sway state parties and local political operatives.

That is what Ready for Hillary is banking on.

*Talking Points Memo: Dylan Scott: “No, Clinton's Frontrunner Status Has
Nothing To Do With Her Gender”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/chuck-todd-hillary-2016?utm_content=bufferdd5a8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

By Dylan Scott

September 9, 2014, 2:10 p.m. EDT

Can Hillary Clinton's presumed 2016 frontrunner status be reduced to her
chromosomes? That view seems to have penetrated the D.C. punditocracy, as
relayed by NBC's newly christened "Meet The Press" moderator Chuck Todd on
Monday.

Todd said in an interview on the Charlie Rose Show that the former
secretary of state and U.S. senator would not be the prohibitive favorite
"if she were running to be the second woman president."

"If she were running to be the second woman president, I think she would
not even be considered a frontrunner," he said, according to a transcript
provided to TPM. "She'd be just considered another candidate."

Rose and Todd referenced the "historical narrative" that Clinton would have
in 2016 -- one that wasn't as prevalent in 2008, when she was running
against another historical candidate in Barack Obama. "This time hers seems
that kind of powerful," Todd said. "It does feel that powerful."

But have we really come so far that being the "first woman" bestows
enormous electoral advantages? Clinton in 2008 was by far the most
formidable female presidential candidate in U.S. history -- and she didn't
even win the nomination. The others are limited to also-rans like Michele
Bachmann in 2012 and Carol Moseley Braun in 2004. Certainly, there will be
some voters motivated at least in part by the opportunity to "break that
glass ceiling," as Todd put it later. But is that all that's happening here?

Jennifer Lawless, a political scientist at American University, isn't
buying it. Research has shown, she said, that female candidates fare no
worse -- and no better! -- than male candidates in lower-office elections,
after accounting for other factors like incumbency.

"Hillary Clinton is the front-runner not because she's a woman, but because
she has the background and experience that she has," Lawless told TPM. She
has a political network and fundraising connections built after decades in
politics -- not to mention historic levels of name recognition, the most
important factor in the early stages of a not-yet-existent campaign.

"We have to look back no further than 2008 to see that the glass-ceiling
factor alone isn't sufficient," Lawless said.

Clinton's resume -- U.S. senator, secretary of state and prominent White
House adviser (to de-gender her time as First Lady) -- would historically
be enough to put her in the top tier of presidential candidates heading
into 2016 regardless of gender, James Hilty, a presidential historian at
Temple University, told TPM.

As he put it: "If she were male, you wouldn't be asking the question."

Hilty contrasted Clinton with Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, vice
presidential nominees who lacked national profiles and didn't have
Clinton's resume when they were selected.

"It all boils down to competency. You can't win on gender alone," he said.
"She's not the female candidate. There's a lot of competition for that now,
which is good, which is leaning in the direction of making gender a fairly
neutral issue."

Todd's larger point was that the power of Clinton's appeal as potentially
the first woman president helps her overcome that she is, in his words,
"kind of out of step of where the Democratic Party is going to be in 2016."
Todd pointed to her more hawkish foreign policy and perceived coziness with
the business community. Of course, that other piece of conventional wisdom
-- "Hillary has a liberal problem" -- has already been called into question
by writers like Slate's Dave Weigel.

But even with his assessment of the Democratic base, Todd theorized that
they would still be enthusiastic about supporting Clinton and offered his
rationale.

"I think the enthusiasm to break that glass ceiling may allow her to
overcome those other issues," he said.

Is it really so simple? It can be somewhat difficult to "isolate" gender as
an issue and measure its effect on primary and general voters, Temple's
Hilty acknowledge. He threw out the hypothetical Clinton versus Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as one scenario in which gender would be completely
"neutralized." Lawless also referenced past situations -- such as when
vulnerable Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill seized on Todd Akin's comments on
"legitimate rape" and won an unlikely re-election in 2012 -- where gender
likely did play some role in the outcome of a race.

But Hilty and Lawless aren't seeing that in 2016. In fact, Lawless said,
Clinton's election likely wouldn't tell us anything about gender in
politics. No woman who runs after her would have any of the built-in,
gender-neutral advantages that Clinton has going into 2016 -- even if the
glass ceiling has been broken.

"We can't generalize based on one race ever," she said. "But Hillary
Clinton in particular is a terrible case to try and draw generalizations
from because no other candidate, male or female, will have the backgrounds
and exposure that she's had. And it's really difficult to parcel out the
independent effect of sex versus everything else."

*The Hill: “GOP’s Benghazi committee prepares for media spotlight”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/news/217206-gops-benghazi-committee-prepares-for-media-spotlight>*

By Scott Wong

September 10, 2014, 5:38 a.m. EDT

The rising threat from Islamic extremists has set the stage for Republicans
to make a splash with the launch of their Benghazi investigation next
week.

The media glare had largely fallen away from the probe into the terror
attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that left Ambassador
Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

But with the second anniversary of the attack looming on Thursday, and a
new book by U.S. security contractors claiming a CIA station chief ordered
them to “stand down” during the assault, the start of the investigation
into Benghazi is poised to become a major event.

“ISIS has now woken up the American people to the fact that the threat is
real, and Benghazi is certainly symptomatic of that,” said Homeland
Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who is not a member
of the Benghazi panel, in an interview.

In particular, lawmakers said the lessons learned from Benghazi would have
to be part of the conversation as President Obama and Congress confront the
challenge of protecting U.S. citizens and facilities that have been
targeted by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The House Foreign Affairs Committee is holding a hearing Wednesday morning
on the continued violence in Libya, giving Republicans another forum to
raise questions about Benghazi.

Even Democrats, who have dismissed the GOP-led investigation as a political
stunt, acknowledged that interest in next week’s Benghazi hearing is likely
to be high.

“I think the public will be more focused — how much more, I don’t know — on
Benghazi because of ISIS, and the media, too,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings
(D-Md.), the top Democrat on both the Oversight Committee and the special
Benghazi panel.

“When Americans hear about or see these beheadings and the idea that these
guys are so ruthless, I think that forces people to think more about
foreign policy,” Cummings said. “And I don’t think the average American
pays too much attention to foreign policy.”

House Republicans formed the bipartisan 12-member panel over the summer in
an attempt to unearth any new evidence about the policies and decisions
that preceded the attack.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) will lead the panel. He is a former prosecutor who
has been conducting the initial stages of the investigation out of the
public eye.

Gowdy, who declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed, hasn’t said
which witnesses will be called when the panel gathers publicly for the
first time next week, but it’s unlikely that he’ll get much cooperation
from the Obama administration.

Secretary of State John Kerry is refusing to appear, and Republicans
haven’t said whether they will seek testimony from Hillary Clinton, who was
in charge at Foggy Bottom the night of the deadly assault.

The committee could also seek testimony from the five private contractors
who are out with a book, 13 Hours, pinning blame on the CIA for delaying a
rescue mission they say could have saved the lives of the four Americans
who were killed.

The contractors have been doing the media circuit, claiming that a CIA
station chief ordered them to “stand down” as a diplomatic compound on the
other side of Benghazi came under attack.

“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,”
one of the contractors said in a recent interview with Fox News.

Their account is providing political fodder for Republicans, who have
suggested that Clinton or some other top administration official ordered
higher-ups in Benghazi to hold off on a rescue mission.

“The president of the United States said they did everything they could
possibly do to save the people in Benghazi. I still highly doubt that
statement,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a vocal critic of the
administration’s handling of the attacks. “You cannot name a single
military asset that was ordered to go into Benghazi during those hours.”

“Somebody in that food chain said ‘stand down,’ ” he said. Chaffetz is not
on the Benghazi panel. “It’s one of the myriad questions that continues to
perpetuate the problem. If we can’t figure out that, then how will we make
sure it never happens again?”

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have rejected the
contractors’ account.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said lawmakers in the House and Senate who
have investigated the attacks never came across evidence indicating the
station chief had told his team to “stand down” and abort a rescue mission.

“After interviewing these individuals, including those writing the book,
and all of the others on the ground that night, both Republicans and
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence
Committee concluded that there was not, in fact, an order to stand down and
no evidence was found to support such a claim,” Ruppersberger said in a
statement this week.

He said the U.S. officials in charge of the CIA annex deliberated
“thoughtfully, reasonably and quickly” about whether the rescue team should
wait for further security before acting.

The House Benghazi panel has mostly been working behind the scenes this
summer. It’s staffed up and conducted interviews with witnesses. Rep. Tammy
Duckworth (D-Ill.), a panel member who lost both legs in the Iraq War, said
she viewed video footage of the attack for the first time during secured
briefings.

But next week, the issue goes before the C-SPAN and cable news cameras.

“The beheadings really got their attention, and all of a sudden it’s clear
that [Obama’s] narrative that things were winding down was not accurate,”
McCaul said.

*The Hill: “Clinton allies distance ‘decisive’ Hillary from ‘passive’
Obama”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/news/217216-clinton-allies-distance-decisive-hillary-from-passive-obama>*

By Amie Parnes

September 10, 2014, 5:37 a.m. EDT

Allies to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are casting a stark
distinction between a decisive, assertive Clinton and a pragmatic,
deliberative President Obama on foreign policy.

As Obama seeks to make the case for military action against the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria in a prime-time address on Wednesday, Clinton
supporters are saying that she would have approached the battle with ISIS
in a completely different way if she were commander in chief.

“You never want to be a Monday morning quarterback on these issues because
who knows how things would ultimately turn out, but Obama has been passive
on these issues,” one former aide to Clinton said. “She would have taken a
more aggressive approach.”

Another former Clinton aide took it a step further: “It’s the very notion
of decisiveness,” the former aide said. “She’s not gnashing her teeth the
way we’re seeing time and time again with Obama.”

Clinton herself used her book Hard Choices this summer to highlight how she
and Obama had differing views and strategies on Syria. And in recent weeks,
in an interview with The Atlantic, Clinton also said that the
administration’s decision not to get involved in the Syrian conflict was a
“failure.”

“Secretary Clinton has made it very clear, not only in her book, that she
thought the administration needed to be involved in creating a legitimate
force in Syria against [President] Bashar al-Assad,” the first former aide
to Clinton said.

Evidence of public dissatisfaction with Obama’s presidency is mounting as
the situation with ISIS worsens, more specifically the president’s handling
of foreign policy.

A CNN-ORC poll this week showed that only 30 percent of Americans think
Obama has a clear plan for combating ISIS. The survey followed a Washington
Post/ABC News poll that showed one in four Democrats considers the Obama
presidency to be a “failure.”

Democrats also have expressed disappointment in Obama’s handling of the
battle against ISIS.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who supported Clinton in 2008,
expressed concern that the president was being “too cautious” in dealing
with ISIS.

Obama and Clinton’s differences on national security date back to the 2008
Democratic presidential primary, when two very different styles emerged.

Back then, the former first lady accused Obama of lacking the experience
necessary to handle world crises. In her famous “3 a.m.” campaign ad in
2008, she said voters needed someone who was “tested and ready to lead in a
dangerous world.”

Observers say it was easy to see the differences between Clinton and Obama
even on the campaign stump.

“One of the great things you saw on display in 2008 was that you got two
very different visions on how the two of them would have governed,” said
Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. “[Obama] campaigned on America engaging
in a different way, getting out of wars and not as muscular. [Clinton]
campaigned being very clear that she would continue with a more muscular
foreign policy approach. And that’s all coming back into play right now.”

Clinton’s tenure at the State Department highlighted her hawkish tendencies
even more. In the lead-up to the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in
2011, then CIA Director Leon Panetta approached Clinton early to get her
buy-in on the raid, according to the book HRC: State Secrets and the
Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, published earlier this year. Panetta knew that
while Obama could be risk-averse, she had what some called a “bias for
action.”

But a former senior administration official defended Obama’s approach,
saying he is “doing the best he can under trying circumstances.”

“[Clinton and Obama] do have very different styles, but I think they’re
more alike than different,” the former official said.

Another former senior administration official familiar with both Obama and
Clinton said the former secretary of State is an “interventionist.”

“Would she be quicker than President Obama to order kinetic military
action? Yes,” the former official said.  “It is reasonable to assume she
would be more action oriented than President Obama,” the former official
added. “And he is more process oriented. Her tendencies are more bellicose
than the president. ... She is a decisive person. She doesn’t speak with a
whole lot of semicolons and commas.”

Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination for
the White House in 2016 if she chooses to run. In a general election, her
hawkish image on foreign policy could help distance her from an unpopular
Obama.

It could also affect the arguments of several likely GOP opponents who have
less experience in foreign policy, including Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted
Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ken.).

At the same time, Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic nomination for the White
House to Obama largely because of liberal unhappiness with her support for
the Iraq War. While no one on the left is now seen as a credible threat,
there could be calls for alternatives to Clinton from the liberal
grassroots if she is again seen as too hawkish.

Clinton allies cringe at the notion that the former secretary is a “hawk.”
They call the label “lazy” and say they prefer to think of her as
action-oriented, decisive and strong-willed.

And they say that this decisiveness could help her in a general election,
especially when it comes to peeling off the votes of independents and some
Republicans.

“Should she decide to run, I think that she’s going to get a fresh look by
people that are not registered by political party or feel disaffected by
the base of their party,” said Ellen Tauscher, the former congresswoman who
served as undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security
Affairs at the State Department under Clinton. “I think that’s why it’s
important she wrote her book. In her words, she’s able to give people a
very good road map about how her deliberative style, her very defined set
of values and her moral compass.”

“I think people will understand that her knee-jerk reaction is not ‘Let’s
go bomb them’ or ‘Let’s use military force,’ ” Tauscher continued. “She
understands the utility of using military force but it’s not the first
thing you reach for. She has always said you have to exhaust diplomacy.”

*Wall Street Journal: “Hillary Clinton’s Approval Numbers Return to Earth —
WSJ/NBC Poll”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/09/hillary-clintons-approval-numbers-return-to-earth-wsjnbc-poll/>*

By Patrick O’Connor

September 9, 2014, 6:33 p.m. EDT

The more Hillary Clinton looks like a candidate, the less invincible she
appears.

The former first lady and New York senator enjoyed sky-high approval
ratings during her tenure as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state,
but her numbers have returned to earth since she traded her perch as the
nation’s top diplomat for her current role as the Democrats’ top
presidential prospect in 2016.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 43% of registered voters
view Ms. Clinton positively, compared with the 41% who harbor negative
views. That’s a steep drop from February 2009 when 59% viewed the newly
confirmed secretary of state positively and just 22% held negative views.
The numbers suggest Americans are far less charitable about Ms. Clinton
when she is seeking office or, in this case, merely considering it than
they are about other politicians who retire from public office.

A case in point: Ms. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, and
his successor, former President George W. Bush. The public views both much
more favorably than when they left office. The latest Journal poll found
56% of registered voters view Mr. Clinton positively, compared with the 21%
who view him negatively. That’s a sharp improvement from March 2001, right
after he left office, when 52% of adults viewed him negatively.

Mr. Bush has witnessed a somewhat more surprising revival since he left
office to the cheers of even some Republicans. In the new poll, registered
voters split almost evenly on the former president, with 37% viewing him
positively and 38% viewing him negatively. That’s a big improvement from
April 2009, a few months after he retired from the Oval Office when the
economy was still in free fall and roughly two out of three Americans
viewed Mr. Bush negatively.

One of the biggest reasons Ms. Clinton has lost some of that glow from 2009
when she played the good soldier by joining her rival’s cabinet is that
Republicans now hold a much dimmer view of the former secretary of state.
Roughly one-in-four Republicans viewed Ms. Clinton positively in 2009. That
number fell to 14% in the latest poll, while those who harbor negative
views jumped 18 percentage points, from 52% in 2009 to 70% this month.

But Ms. Clinton has also fallen out of favor with some Democrats and
independents, as well. In 2009, 87% of Democrats viewed her positively,
compared with a meager 3% who viewed negatively. In the latest poll, 72% of
Democrats view Ms. Clinton positively, while 13% harbor negative views.
Independents were twice as likely to view her positively as negatively in
2009. Now, they are more evenly split, with 40% holding positive views and
35% viewing her negatively.

Despite that erosion, Ms. Clinton remains more popular than many of the
Republicans she could face in a presidential showdown in 2016. Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush – three Republicans mentioned as potential White House
hopefuls in 2016 – are all viewed more negatively than positively. Only
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio garnered as many positive views as he did negative
ones, with registered voters split evenly at 21%-21%.

The poll revealed a potentially difficult trend for Mr. Paul, who has
called for a less interventionist foreign policy, as Republicans grow
decidedly more hawkish in the face of a growing threat posed by Islamic
militants destabilizing the Middle East. Some 61% of the poll respondents
said it would be in the country’s national interest to take military action
against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a view shared by Mr. Paul.
Nearly half of Republicans went a step further to say they would favor
sending combat troops to the region to battle the group directly.

But perhaps more striking is that self-identified Republicans in the
September survey wanted the U.S. to be more involved in world affairs, by a
margin of 41%-34%. That’s a big jump from a Journal poll conducted in April
that found 45% of Republicans wanted the U.S. to be less active in the
world, and just 29% wanting the country to be more involved. If the shift
continues, Mr. Paul may face more pressure to articulate foreign-policy
views that run counter to many of his supporters – or to the Republicans
currently outside his fold.

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers come back down to earth”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-come-back-down-earth>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

September 9, 2014, 8:19 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings continue to tumble as she renters
the political fray, with 43% of respondents now saying they view her
positively, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, down from
a high of 60% in 2009.

But Clinton remains one of only two politicians polled whose favorability
rating tops their unfavorable numbers (the other being her husband, former
president Bill Clinton).  Forty-one percent of respondents hold a negative
view of the former first lady and potential 2016 presidential candidate,
slightly fewer than those who hold positive views.

Clinton’s numbers were likely destined to fall back to earth as she
reentered domestic partisan politics. In recent months, she’s increasingly
weighed in on hot-button issues like gun control, which is likely to blunt
her support among non-Democrats who may have liked her as secretary of
state or as a private citizen, but would never support her as a
presidential candidate.

George W. Bush’s ratings, for instance, have climbed since he left office.

Her husband remains the most popular political figure surveyed, with 56% of
respondents holding positive views of the former president and just 21%
expressing a negative opinion.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who is also eyeing a presidential bid,
breaks even with the same number holding favorable and unfavorable views.
Among other potential GOP presidential contenders, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
has a net negative four point rating, Mitt Romney is down seven points, and
Jeb Bush is down 11 points.

There is somewhat more intensity against Clinton than for her, with 26%
saying they hold “very negative” views of Clinton and 21% holding “very
positive” views of the former first lady.

*Washington Post column: Dana Milbank: “Bill Clinton and George Bush pal
up”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-bill-clinton-and-george-bush-pal-up/2014/09/08/244c91a0-379f-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html>*

By Dana Milbank

September 8, 2014

Now it can be told: Bill Clinton was a secret adviser to George W. Bush.

“He used to call me twice a year in his second term, just to talk,” the
42nd president disclosed Monday, with the 43rd president at his side. The
two would talk “somewhere between 30 and 45 minutes, for several years,”
Clinton continued. “. . . Never talked about it in public. We talked about
everything in the wide world. He asked my opinion.”

The prevailing opinion expressed by the two men at their joint appearance
at the Newseum was that they really, really like each other. These
representatives of America’s rival political dynasties spent years blaming
each other’s leadership for the nation’s ills, but now they have come
together to profess mutual, and long-standing, admiration.

Josh Bolten, the former Bush White House chief of staff who moderated the
event, instructed each to say what he liked about the other’s leadership.

Clinton, up first, went on at characteristic length about Bush’s
partnership with Ted Kennedy, his knack for being underestimated and his
courageous determination to do “what he thought was right” regardless of
the politics. Clinton said he “learned a lot” from Bush and watched his
“clarity and decisiveness with great admiration.” He even defended Bush for
his famous assertion that he doesn’t “do nuance.”

After 3½ minutes, it was Bush’s turn. “There’s a lot to admire about Bill
Clinton,” he began. “I think, first of all, he’s an awesome communicator.”
Bush tried to stretch his answer out (“You, too, have got great empathy. .
. . You, too, made tough decisions.”) but ran out of steam after about 90
seconds. “And so, um, yeah — is that enough?” he asked. “That was a lot
shorter than your answer.”

“You don’t do nuance,” Clinton reminded him.

The two men were true to type: Clinton was meandering, while Bush’s answers
were simple. (Asked to comment on Lyndon Johnson, Bush remarked that “he
was a big guy.”) But the old foes seemed to be enjoying their banter. If
they don’t genuinely like each other, they fake it well. “George” and
“Bill,” as they called each other, wore matching blue ties and crossed
their legs in identical fashion, shared manly handshakes and occasionally
put a hand on each other’s arm as they performed their routine.

“We were laughing about going to restaurants and having to spend our time
taking selfies with people,” Clinton told the audience.

“At least they are still asking,” Bush quipped.

Bush spoke of the time the two men were asked at an earlier appearance
together about “another Clinton-Bush matchup. My answer was the first one
didn’t turn out too good.”

The kibitzing was interrupted at one point by a melodic ringtone from
Clinton’s cellphone. “I hope I’m not being told I’m about to become a
premature grandfather,” Clinton said, silencing the ring.

“That would make national news,” observed Bush, who later offered his
former rival some grandfathering advice.

The two men are on opposite sides of most issues, and though they have
worked together on Haiti, their relationship, at least in public, hasn’t
been as close as Clinton’s has been with Bush’s father. But at the Newseum,
the two men demonstrated their solidarity on matters of great priority —
such as promoting Bush’s forthcoming book on his father, the 41st president.

“I thought you were going to promote my book,” Bush told the moderator,
then did the work himself. “. . . This book I’m writing — marketing, now —
which I think will be out November 11th, it’s a love story.”

Bolten took the hint. “Available November 11th, $16.80 on Amazon.com,” he
said.

Bush raised his thumb to indicate a higher price.

Clinton, joining the telethon, volunteered that he was “one of the
non-right-wingers” who read George W.’s memoir. “It was a heck of a book.”

The event was to launch a joint leadership-development program by the
presidential centers of Clinton, LBJ and both Bushes. Clinton said the
“presidential leadership scholars” program would be, in part, about
rebuilding “the skill that we are beginning to see atrophy in America,
which is listening to people who disagree with us.” Clinton said he would
like to get people talking about the need to compromise. “If you read the
Constitution, it ought to be subtitled ‘Let’s Make a Deal,’ ” he said.

Restoring the role of compromise is a big task — but perhaps not
impossible, if these old warriors have become as friendly as they claim. “I
admire my pal’s ability to communicate and to lead,” affirmed Bush,
playfully calling Clinton a “beautiful man — beautiful.”

“I will say one thing nice about my friend here,” Clinton returned, then
amended his statement. “I will say more than one thing.”

And he did.

*The Hill blog: Heath Brown: “Why Podesta might chair Clinton's transition,
not the campaign”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/217196-why-podesta-might-chair-clintons-transition-not-the-campaign>*

By Heath Brown

September 10, 2014, 7:00 a.m. EDT

Last week, Politico reported that John Podesta is under consideration to
chair the yet-to-be-announced Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Podesta certainly has all of the qualifications and connections, but they
may be pegging him for the wrong job. For several reasons, Podesta would
make a better chair of transition planning than of the campaign.

Of course, it sounds foolish to even begin speculating about a transition
that’s even further away than the campaign, but planning starts long before
Election Day. Advisers to George W. Bush began quietly planning in 1999,
prior to securing his nomination, and new regulations make it easier for
transition officials to gain the security clearances necessary to insure a
safe and speedy transition of power. Partisan critics will cry "drape
measuring!" and presumptuousness, but smart candidates know that it's naive
and dangerous to wait until the 11 weeks between the election and
inauguration to start thinking about complex personnel decisions,
reorganizing the vast federal bureaucracy and how campaign pronouncements
could be implemented.

Given the gravity of transition planning, Podesta is an obvious choice.

First, if Clinton decides to run, she'll likely face only limited
competition to win the Democratic Party's nomination. Unlike the
Republicans, the fierce public campaign for the Democrats will not get
going until much later in cycle. While considerable fundraising and
strategizing is likely already underway, the real heavy lifting for
Clinton's campaign won't begin for a while, so Podesta's time might be
wasted.

Second, Podesta was already hired for the job. In 2008, then-presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton had Podesta beginning to plan for her
administration from his perch at the Center for American Progress. When
Clinton dropped out, Podesta took on the role for President Obama,
co-chairing the much lauded Obama/Biden transition team. This experience
would matter a lot for the couple that never forgets. Recall that over 20
years ago, the Bill Clinton transition in 1992 was criticized for the slow
pace of appointing White House staff and mistakes in vetting several
Cabinet nominees. Podesta's 2008 experience would prevent this from
happening again.

Finally, Podesta is clearly a creature of Washington, but his distinguished
career suggests his heart is in policy, not politics. He worked as White
House chief of staff at the end of President Clinton's second term and now
serves as a counselor to Obama on climate change and energy policy. Podesta
is an idea wonk and campaigns are where complex ideas go to die.

There is an old adage that "You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose."
It may be the case that you transition plan in secret, but the requisite
discretion of transition planning doesn't diminish the importance of the
work. John Podesta likely knows as much as anyone about how the White House
and the federal bureaucracy function. He's the best-positioned adviser to
Hillary Clinton to take on that responsibility in advance of 2016 ... if
she runs.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  September 12 – Tokyo, Japan: Sec. Clinton, Christine Lagarde, and
Caroline Kennedy speak at an event on improving the participation of women
in the economy (Washington Post
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NBE5HC6TTDS701-5BKDBI2BQLDAGHGNS02DFJ1V12>
)

·  September 12 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Roosevelt
Institute’s Women and Girls Rising Conference (Women and Girls Rising
<http://womenandgirlsrising.strikingly.com/>)

·  September 12 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a DGA fundraiser (
Twitter <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/507209428274143234>)

·  September 14 – Indianola, IA: Sec. Clinton headlines Sen. Harkin’s Steak
Fry (LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-tom-harkin-clinton-steak-fry-20140818-story.html>
)

·  September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Transcatheter
Cardiovascular Therapeutics Conference (CRF
<http://www.crf.org/tct/agenda/keynote-address>)

·  September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at Legal Services
Corp. 40th Anniversary (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas/status/507549332846178304>)

·  September 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a 9/11 Health Watch
fundraiser (NY Daily News
<http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/hillary-clinton-mark-9-11-anniversary-nyc-fundraiser-responders-kin-blog-entry-1.1926372>
)

·  September 19 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DNC with
Pres. Obama (CNN
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>)

·  September 29 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines fundraiser for DCCC (
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-headline-dccc-fundraiser-110764.html?hp=l8_b1>
)

·  October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network
Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network
<http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>)

·  October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa
Citizen
<http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6>
)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation
Annual Dinner (UNLV
<http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>)

·  October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/highlights.jsp#tuesday>)

·  October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House
Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>
)

 ·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)