Subject: Correct The Record Thursday July 31, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:42:27 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Thursday July 31, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: In the Senate, @HillaryClinton
supported tax credits for student loan recipients #HRC365
http://1.usa.gov/XeXXLz  <http://t.co/EwxajC2NYD>[7/30/14, 4:56 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/494587250726801408>]

*Headlines:*

*Washington Post: “Hundreds of big donors, including Obama bundlers, are
‘Ready for Hillary’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hundreds-of-big-donors-including-obama-bundlers-are-ready-for-hillary/2014/07/31/e9dfbdf2-181e-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html>*

“At least 222 donors have signed up as co-chairs of Ready for Hillary’s
national finance council — a commitment that requires donating or raising
$25,000 each, or at least $5.6 million between them, according to a
membership list obtained by The Washington Post..”

*National Journal: “How Can Republicans Blunt Hillary Clinton's Foreign
Policy Edge?”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-can-republicans-blunt-hillary-clinton-s-foreign-policy-edge-20140731>*

[Subtitle:] “It's been years since Democrats held a national security
advantage in a presidential race. If Clinton runs, the GOP will be
scrambling to take it away.”

*CNN: “Applying for new job? Clinton tinkers with her bio”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/31/applying-for-new-job-clinton-tinkers-with-her-bio/>*

“Just like anyone thinking about applying for a new position, Hillary
Clinton – or people close to her – have tinkered with and beefed up the
promotional biography she uses at different events.”

*Business Insider: “Clintons Dismiss Tell-All Books About Them As 'Complete
Crap'”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/clintons-claim-tell-all-books-are-complete-crap-2014-7>*

“Team Clinton has taken their public criticism of tell-all books about
President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton to a new level, accusing a trio
of authors of ‘concocting trashy nonsense’ and producing "complete crap"
about them, according to a new Politico report published Thursday.”

*Roll Call blog: Five by Five: “New Benghazi Report Reaches
‘Noncontroversial Conclusions,’ Congressman Says”
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/new-benghazi-report-reaches-noncontroversial-conclusions-congressman-says/?dcz=>*

“Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., said Thursday that a House Intelligence
Committee investigative report on Benghazi that the panel voted to approve
reaches ‘noncontroversial conclusions’  and that it should be declassified
swiftly.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Obama, Clinton could collide on Vineyard”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/213914-obama-hillary-clinton-will-be-on-marthas-vineyard-at-same-time>*

“The trip by Clinton overlaps with Obama's Aug. 9-23 vacation at Martha's
Vineyard.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “How Hillary Clinton has become more
popular than Barack Obama”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/31/how-hillary-clinton-has-become-more-popular-than-barack-obama/>*

“While Obama has taken flak for what some call his administration's use of
‘soft power,’ Clinton has skillfully managed to separate herself from the
president, despite once being a key part of his team and directing U.S.
foreign policy.”

*Articles:*

*Washington Post: “Hundreds of big donors, including Obama bundlers, are
‘Ready for Hillary’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hundreds-of-big-donors-including-obama-bundlers-are-ready-for-hillary/2014/07/31/e9dfbdf2-181e-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html>*

By Philip Rucker and Matea Gold

July 31, 2014, 11:46 a.m. EDT

A diverse cadre of big money Democratic players has directed millions of
dollars into a super PAC supporting a potential presidential bid by Hillary
Rodham Clinton, underscoring the extent to which the party machinery is
tilting in her favor.

At least 222 donors have signed up as co-chairs of Ready for Hillary’s
national finance council — a commitment that requires donating or raising
$25,000 each, or at least $5.6 million between them, according to a
membership list obtained by The Washington Post. More than 600 other donors
are considered members of the finance council, required to give or raise
$5,000 each.

The Ready for Hillary fundraising team includes scores of President Obama’s
biggest campaign bundlers — evidence that the rift between the two camps
has healed considerably since 2008. The super PAC also features donors
representing all major sectors of the Democratic Party’s money base, from
Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, the list shows.

The former secretary of state, who is months way from announcing a decision
about a 2016 campaign, enjoys a massive head start in assembling a finance
network compared with any other candidate, Democratic or Republican. The
breadth and depth of support for her campaign-in-waiting could give serious
pause to any Democrat weighing a primary challenge, such as Vice President
Biden or Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

“If you look at the finance council as a whole, it’s very representative of
what a potential Hillary Clinton campaign’s finance council will look
like,” said Adam Parkhomenko, co-founder and executive director of Ready
for Hillary. “You have people who’ve been supporting her for 10, 20, 30
years; you’ve got people who’ve never made a contribution to any political
campaign before; and you have people who were really active in 2008 and
2012 for President Obama’s campaigns.”

Shortly after November’s midterms elections, Ready for Hillary plans to
hold a national finance council meeting in New York to discuss the super
PAC’s future and Clinton’s potential campaign, officials said. While Ready
for Hillary can’t coordinate with a campaign, it could probably rent or
exchange its lists of supporters and donors, campaign finance experts say.

The group has positioned itself as the repository of grass-roots support
for Clinton, with many backers giving symbolic gifts of $20.16. But its
membership list shows it is being bolstered substantially by big donors. Of
the $8.2 million the super PAC reported raising through the end of June,
$1.1 million came from donors who gave less than $200, according to a Post
analysis of Federal Election Commission reports.

The super PAC’s finance council includes Hollywood players (legendary
sitcom producer Marcy Carsey and “Homeland” and “24” producer Howard
Gordon), technology entrepreneurs (Salesforce.com chief executive Marc
Benioff and Enscient Corp. founder Shelly Kapoor Collins), gay rights
activists (Tim Gill and Jon Stryker), trial lawyers (Dallas lawyer Marc
Stanley), Wall Street financiers (former Goldman Sachs partner Daniel
Neidich) and billionaire heavyweights (hedge fund guru George Soros and
philanthropist Eli Broad).

Ready for Hillary’s leaders have made concerted efforts to woo key backers
of Obama’s campaigns to make the case that Democrats who were bitterly
divided in 2008 will unite behind Clinton. The invitation for a
$1,000-per-ticket reception at an upscale Chicago steakhouse in June was
co-hosted by longtime Clinton friend Kevin O’Keefe, who ran her Illinois
effort in 2008, as well as high-profile Obama bundlers Alan Solow and Laura
Ricketts.

“We were careful to show a unified group, so many people important to her
and Obama were all together,” said Kevin Conlon, a public affairs executive
who helped organize the reception.

Fifty major fundraisers who served on Obama’s 769-member national finance
committee in 2012 already have signed on as co-chairs or members of Ready
for Hillary’s finance council, according to the Post analysis.

Among them are Benioff, Gill, Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Jacobs, New Jersey
public relations executive Michael Kempner, technology investor Steve
Spinner and former California state controller Steve Westly.

The corps of former Obama backers also includes Ursula Terrasi, who runs a
home store in Kansas City. She said she was drawn to Obama as a candidate —
meeting him during the 2008 campaign, she said, “was the most exciting
thing.” But now she is lining up behind Clinton, whom she said she has
“admired from afar.”

“I feel it’s time for a woman president,” said Terrasi, who as a Ready for
Hillary co-chair hosted a Kansas City fundraiser that drew some 250 people.

The coalescing of deep-pocketed donors around Ready for Hillary is
particularly remarkable given the existence of a different super PAC,
Priorities USA Action, that Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and other
Clinton backers have deemed as the preferred vehicle for big money. After
some initial tension between the two groups, Ready for Hillary agreed to
voluntarily cap its donations at $25,000.

Priorities USA, meanwhile, has held off fundraising efforts in order not to
siphon funds away from the super PACs working to back congressional
Democrats in the midterms. So far this cycle, it has collected less than
$6,000 in individual contributions, while giving $250,000 each to the
Senate and House super PACs.

But the midterms haven’t slowed down Ready for Hillary. The group has made
donations to several state parties and, once Clinton hits the campaign
trail this fall, will assist candidates she endorses.

“We’ll echo her,” Parkhomenko said. “We’re going to take that energy and
excitement around a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy and put that into
action around 2014.”

While the vast majority of the super PAC’s 90,000 donors have given small
sums, more than half of Ready for Hillary’s money — nearly $4.8 million
through the end of June — came from 1,018 contributors who each gave the
organization more than $500, officials said.

Many Ready for Hillary co-chairs hail from outside the world of Clinton
loyalists. They include New York art dealer Larry Gagosian, who gave money
to support Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012, and
Northern California philanthropists John and Marcia Goldman, major
Democratic benefactors who have given thousands to the party’s
congressional super PACs.

Other co-chairs are relatively new to big-money politics: Sharon Elghanayan
Corzine, who is married to former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, had only
written a few large checks in the past before giving Ready for Hillary
$25,000 at the end of March.

But the Ready for Hillary leadership also includes plenty of Hillaryland
stalwarts: Esprit clothing line founder Susie Tompkins Buell, former
congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, Democratic National Committee official Carol
Pensky, Washington philanthropist Edie Fraser and former State Department
adviser Shelly Porges.

“It is like a groundswell,” Pensky said. “Once she actually announces, I do
think it’s going to be incredible to see the support that is going to come
her way.”

Fraser said that she and other Clinton friends make a point not to talk
about their fundraising efforts with Clinton for fear of getting into murky
legal waters. Federal election laws prevent candidates from directly
coordinating with super PACs.

“There’s basically an arm’s-length reach,” Fraser said. “I don’t think any
of us talk to her about Ready for Hillary.”

The super PAC also provides a way for longtime Clinton fundraisers — as
well as newcomers — to get in early on what they see as her all-but-certain
2016 campaign.

Dan Kessler was only 18 when Clinton ran for president the first time. Now,
at age 24, he is a Ready for Hillary finance council co-chair and organized
a fundraiser at a Philadelphia nightclub that drew 400 young professionals.
Kessler said he has helped put together similar events in Boston, Chicago,
New York, Pittsburgh and Seattle.

Kessler said he first met the Clintons as a child; his father, Alan, is a
prominent Democratic fundraiser who has backed Bill or Hillary Clinton’s
campaigns since the 1980s. He said he feels “a real driving predicate of
galvanizing this youth involvement across the country.”

“Nothing’s certain,” Kessler said, “but if and when she decides to run, I
feel that the networks that I’ve built across the country are going to be
tremendous.”

*National Journal: “How Can Republicans Blunt Hillary Clinton's Foreign
Policy Edge?”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-can-republicans-blunt-hillary-clinton-s-foreign-policy-edge-20140731>*

By James Oliphant

July 31, 2014

[Subtitle:] It's been years since Democrats held a national security
advantage in a presidential race. If Clinton runs, the GOP will be
scrambling to take it away.

For evidence that foreign affairs are swiftly emerging as a central factor
in the nascent 2016 presidential race, look no further than Dallas, deep in
the heart of Texas and 7,000 miles away from the brutal conflict in Gaza.

There, on Wednesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry gave a speech reaffirming his
solidarity with the people of Israel. While it might feel a little like the
mayor of Sacramento standing up to Vladimir Putin, the move said much about
the wide-open Republican field.

With the world aflame in Gaza, Ukraine, Syria, and elsewhere, potential
2016 candidates are sharpening their foreign policy and national security
credentials, seeking outside counsel, and raising their profiles. Perry is
just one example. In recent months, others such as Sens. Ted Cruz, Rand
Paul, and Marco Rubio have been proving the adage that politicians should
never let a crisis go to waste.

The Obama administration has given them a target in plain sight. And while
it's relatively easy to lob brickbats from the cheap seats, saying that the
president should be, in effect, doing more everywhere, there's another
reason why possible contenders have to be working on their foreign policy
game now, not later: the prospect of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

Clinton, the former secretary of State, could place Democrats in an
unfamiliar position in the next presidential race, giving them the edge in
foreign policy and national security. You would have to go back to Al
Gore's race against George W. Bush in 2000 to find the last time that
happened—and Gore was never the nation's leading diplomat.

"It's assumed she is a heavyweight on foreign policy," said Vin Weber, the
former Republican congressman from Minnesota and a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations. "You can't look like you're completely outclassed."

Conversely, should Clinton not run and Democrats embrace someone such as
Elizabeth Warren, who seems almost exclusively focused on domestic economic
issues, that edge would vanish and some Republican—be it Perry, Rubio, or
someone else—will be in a position to capitalize. That means they have to
lay the groundwork now.

Clinton presents a formidable challenge. She is widely viewed, rightly or
wrongly, as more hawkish than Obama, more willing to use American military
power. And she has been subtly distancing herself from the president's
approach toward hotbeds like Syria and Russia. Her comments in a weekend
interview on CNN were seen by some as a critique of the administration. The
United States, Clinton said, needs to "go back out and sell ourselves" on
the world stage. "What do we stand for and how do we intend to lead and
manage?" she asked, adding, "I don't think we've done a very good job of
that."

It essentially means that Clinton would, should she run, be occupying the
space that might normally be held by a traditional national security
Republican, someone like John McCain or Mitt Romney. The New York Times
even wondered aloud whether Clinton could be considered a neoconservative
in the mold of, wait for it, Paul Wolfowitz. That doesn't mean Clinton
would be firewalled from Republican attacks. As Weber says, she can't
entirely separate herself from Obama. For one thing, she'll have to defend
her move at State to "reset" relations with Putin and Russia—although now
she says she was "skeptical" of Putin all along.

In terms of outreach to the foreign policy establishment, Clinton, too, is
light-years ahead of her potential rivals. At the State Department, she
formed a bipartisan outside advisory group, which included neoconservative
scholar Robert Kagan; John Negroponte, who served as an adviser to
President Reagan and national intelligence director under George W. Bush;
Stephen Krasner, a former aide to Condoleezza Rice at State; and Stephen
Hadley, who served as Bush's national security adviser.

Clinton's centrist street cred could force some contenders to veer more
sharply to the right to define themselves. There are signs that's already
happening. In an interview this week with the Daily Beast, Cruz said he
would consider scuttling any nuclear-arms deal struck by the Obama
administration with Iran if he considered it a threat to national security.
Last month, Rubio likened Sunni insurgents in Iraq and Syria to al-Qaida
and criticized Obama for publicly ruling out sending U.S. ground troops to
the region. And then there's very real political risk that conservatives
such as Cruz could end up alienating mainstream voters with a relentless
focus on foreign policy side issues, namely Benghazi.

But no one's carved out a niche like Paul, who has found himself under
repeated attack by the GOP national security establishment. Perry led the
charge with a withering op-ed in The Washington Post earlier this month, in
which he said the Kentucky libertarian wants to create a "giant moat"
around America "where superpowers can retire from the world."

Paul's camp denies the senator's foreign policy should be viewed as
"isolationist," as Perry charges. Lorne Craner, a foreign policy adviser to
Paul, told National Journal that Paul should be considered a "realist"
along the lines of former Republican foreign policy titans like James A.
Baker III, Casper Weinberger, and George Schultz. "He has a very high bar
for military intervention," said Craner, who worked at the State Department
under Colin Powell. "That is important. I think we've learned last 10
years—the last 40 years really—to think carefully before you get into a
war."

Ostensibly referring to Perry and some other of Paul's critics, Craner
added: "Republicans used to have a reputation as the foreign-policy
grownups. That's not the way most voters would describe it at this point."

Paul's recruitment of Craner is part of his extended outreach to
Washington's foreign policy community. He's also met with Elliott Abrams,
the former Middle East policy expert in the Bush administration, among
others. While praising Paul's intellect, Abrams said, "I think he wants to
see a very diminished American role.... I think his view is quite distinct."

For his part, Cruz tapped Victoria Coates, a former aide to Donald
Rumsfeld, as his top national security adviser after she did a turn
advising Perry during the 2012 campaign. Rubio brought aboard Jamie Fly, a
member of the National Security Council during the Bush administration and
the former executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a
neoconservative advocacy group, as his national security adviser. According
to The Post, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has consulted with Richard
Haass, the president of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Christie illustrates the hazard of trying to master foreign relations on
the fly. In March, he had to apologize to GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson
after referring in a speech to Palestinian regions in Israel as "occupied
territories." Weber says that while foreign policy is rarely the primary
concern of voters, a "gaffe can be fatal. Every presidential candidate has
to make sure they look knowledgeable on America's role in the world."

It's a concern that no doubt was in the forefront of Perry's mind as he
delivered his remarks on Israel on Wednesday from the relative safety of
Dallas. Like many of his potential rivals, the governor is learning to swim
in water that's getting deeper by the day.

*CNN: “Applying for new job? Clinton tinkers with her bio”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/31/applying-for-new-job-clinton-tinkers-with-her-bio/>*

By Dan Merica

July 31, 2014, 11:47 a.m. EDT

Just like anyone thinking about applying for a new position, Hillary
Clinton – or people close to her – have tinkered with and beefed up the
promotional biography she uses at different events.

Since leaving the State Department in 2013, Clinton's speaking agency
provided organizations before which she was appearing with a variation of
the lengthy bio that she uses at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
Foundation. The organization would, in turn, use some or all of the bio in
promotional and press materials.

"The bio we used came directly from the Harry Walker agency," said an
organizer of a past Clinton event who didn't want to be identified. "It was
verbatim and they insist on that as part of the agreement. It is in her
contract."

But recently, Clinton has dispensed with her old bio and gone with a
shorter description that emphasizes her new memoir and work as secretary of
state, including specific highlights from her four years as America's top
diplomat.

A Clinton spokesman tells CNN that the bio was updated for Clinton's new
memoir and subsequent book tour. The bio now, however, reads much like the
same pitch Clinton has given for why her four years at State were a success
and why she would possibly succeed as president.

Clinton undertook efforts "to restore America's leadership after eight
years in which it was badly eroded," states the bio, an apparent swipe at
former President George W. Bush.

During her nearly two month book tour around her memoir "Hard Choices,"
Clinton has been asked repeatedly what her major accomplishments were at
State. In an answer that now mimics her bio, Clinton told NPR in June that
"the most important thing I did was to help restore America's leadership
around the world. ... We were flat on our back when I walked in there the
first time."

These efforts, according to the bio, included "repairing our fraying
alliances to negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza that defended Israel's
security and headed off another war in the Middle East," "mobilizing an
international coalition to impose crippling sanctions against Iran" and
"standing up to China and helping reassert the United States as a Pacific
power."

"Thanks in large measure to Hillary's leadership, people were finally able
to say: America's back," reads the bio. "She championed human rights,
internet freedom, religious freedom, and rights and opportunities for women
and girls, LGBT people, and young people around the world, as she has her
entire career."

The bio also emphasizes economic actions Clinton took, stating that the
former secretary of state "went to bat for American workers and companies
around the world to boost exports, create jobs back home, and level the
playing field against unfair competition from China and elsewhere."

This is a noticeable departure from Clinton's old bio, which highlighted
Clinton's lengthy history in public life, including eight years as first
lady of the United States and eight years as the United States senator from
New York.

While the old bio mentions Clinton's time as secretary of state – "In her
four years as Secretary of State, Clinton played a central role in
restoring America's standing in the world and strengthening its global
leadership," states to bio – it lacks the specificity that the new bio
includes.

Examples of Clinton's new bio began to crop up around events the former
secretary of state will attend this fall.

For four upcoming events – an August 28 tech keynote in San Francisco, a
September 15 medical keynote in Washington, DC, an October 8 medical
keynote in Chicago and a December 4 women's event keynote in Boston –
Clinton used the new bio.

In most of her previous speeches – for example, her March speech at the
University of California Los Angeles, her April speech at the University of
Connecticut and her February speech at the University of Miami – Clinton
used a version of her older bio.

*Business Insider: “Clintons Dismiss Tell-All Books About Them As 'Complete
Crap'”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/clintons-claim-tell-all-books-are-complete-crap-2014-7>*

By Colin Campbell

July 31, 2014

Team Clinton has taken their public criticism of tell-all books about
President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton to a new level, accusing a trio
of authors of "concocting trashy nonsense" and producing "complete crap"
about them, according to a new Politico report published Thursday.

"Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media
outlets who know with every fiber of their being that this is complete crap
should know not to get down in the gutter with them and spread their lies,"
spokesmen for Bill, Hillary, and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton,
reportedly said in a joint statement.

The three books — "Blood Feud" by Ed Klein, "Clinton, Inc." by Daniel
Halper, and "The First Family Detail" by Ronald Kessler — contain several
salacious anecdotes regarding the former first family. In July, the New
York Post quoted allegations from Kessler's upcoming book that Bill Clinton
"has a buxom blond mistress who visits so often when Hillary Clinton isn’t
home in Chappaqua that the former president’s Secret Service detail have
given her an unofficial code name: Energizer." One Klein anecdote depicts
Hillary Clinton, an expected presidential contender in 2016, criticizing
President Barack Obama by saying, "You can't trust the motherf**ker."

The Clintons are not alone in viewing some of the books' accounts as highly
suspect. Klein has come under particular scrutiny from critics who have all
but accused him of fabricating his quotes. Previously, a source close to
Hillary Clinton told Business Insider Klein was one of the most
"despicable" people in the world. (Klein responded: "In typical Clinton
fashion, when people can’t handle or respond to the truth, they attack the
messenger.")

The Clintons' statement to Politco lumped all three authors together as
"despicable actors."

"With Klein, Halper and Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable
actors concocting trashy nonsense for a quick buck, at the expense of
anything even remotely resembling the truth," the statement said. "It’s an
insult to readers [and] authors, and should be reserved for the fiction
bin, if not the trash."

*Roll Call blog: Five by Five: “New Benghazi Report Reaches
‘Noncontroversial Conclusions,’ Congressman Says”
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/new-benghazi-report-reaches-noncontroversial-conclusions-congressman-says/?dcz=>*

By Tim Starks

July 31, 2014, 9:57 a.m. EDT

Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., said Thursday that a House Intelligence
Committee investigative report on Benghazi that the panel voted to approve
reaches “noncontroversial conclusions” and that it should be declassified
swiftly. Schiff serves on the Intelligence panel as well as the new
Republican-created select committee investigating the 2012 attack on the
U.S. diplomatic facility in Libya.

His full statement:

“The Intelligence Committee report adds to the body of investigative work
now completed by numerous committees in Congress, and reaches the same
noncontroversial conclusions – that the initial talking points provided by
the intelligence community were flawed because of conflicting assessments
not an intention to deceive, that there was no stand down order, that the
diplomatic facilities lacked adequate security, and that our personnel at
the scene acted bravely and appropriately.

“This bipartisan report should be declassified quickly, so that the
American people may know what we have learned behind closed doors, and how
it concurs with other analysis already made public.”

The select Benghazi panel, meanwhile, has been interviewing victims’
families. Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., recently announced that it would
hold its first hearing in September, and that former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and former Central Intelligence Agency Director David
Petreaus need to testify.

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Obama, Clinton could collide on Vineyard”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/213914-obama-hillary-clinton-will-be-on-marthas-vineyard-at-same-time>*

By Rebecca Shabad

July 31, 2014, 10:58 a.m. EDT

President Obama and Hillary Clinton will both be on Martha’s Vineyard next
month at the same time, The Boston Globe reports.

Clinton is scheduled to sign copies of her memoir Hard Choices at the Bunch
of Grapes Bookstore in Vineyard Haven on Aug. 13. She’s considered the 2016
Democratic frontrunner for president if she decides to enter the race.

The trip by Clinton overlaps with Obama's Aug. 9-23 vacation at Martha's
Vineyard.

The bookstore appears to only be a 25-minute drive away from Chilmark,
Mass., which is where the Obamas will be staying, according to Martha's
Vineyard Times.

It’s unclear, however, if the two will meet up.

The president and his family have vacationed on the Vineyard every year
since he took office except 2012 because of his reelection campaign, the
report noted.

This year, locals told the Times that the Obamas will be staying in a
seven-bedroom, nine-bathroom house worth an estimated $12 million that
overlooks the Vineyard Sound.

Joanne Hubschman owns the home, which features 17 rooms in total, a hot
tub, infinity pool, and a tennis-basketball court. Hubschman’s late husband
was a former executive at General Electric.

The Obamas vacationed last December in Hawaii, which is where the president
grew up.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “How Hillary Clinton has become more
popular than Barack Obama”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/31/how-hillary-clinton-has-become-more-popular-than-barack-obama/>*

By Sebastian Payne and Sean Sullivan

July 31, 2014, 12:17 p.m. EDT

“You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

How times have changed since then-Sen. Barack Obama made that remark in a
televised debate ahead of the 2008 New Hampshire primaries. Back then, more
of the public preferred Obama over rival Sen. Hillary Clinton. In a poll
conducted soon after Obama gave that backhanded compliment, 54 percent said
they had a favorable opinion of Clinton compared to 63 percent for Obama.
The Democrats, and eventually the nation, decided that Obama was the more
popular one, as demonstrated by his later primary successes and two
presidential election victories.

But six years later, the popularity ratings of Obama vs. Clinton have
reversed. According to a new Quinnipiac University survey of Ohio voters
released Thursday, things are pretty bad for President Obama in the Buckeye
State. He has a 36 percent approval/59 percent disapproval rating. Things
are better for Clinton — she leads a handful of potential 2016 presidential
opponents, including popular home state Gov. John Kasich (R).

"The bad news for Democrats is that President Obama's approval rating in
Ohio is close to his all-time, all-state low. The good news for the party
is that the president doesn't appear to be hurting the Democrats' consensus
front-runner for 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," said
Quinnipiac pollster Peter Brown in the polling memo.

Ohio, a perennial swing state, is fertile ground for Clinton ahead of a
possible 2016 run for president. She sports a +9 net favorable rating. And
she beats four potential GOP foes in head-to-head match-ups, according to
the poll: Clinton tops Kasich 47 percent to 40 percent; she gets past Sen.
Rand Paul (Ky.) 46 percent to 42 percent; she bests former Florida governor
Jeb Bush 48 percent to 37 percent; and she tops New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie 46 percent to 37 percent.

Other polls reinforce the Quinnipiac findings. At the beginning of 2014, 49
percent said in a Post-ABC poll they held a favorable opinion of Obama, but
58 percent said the same for Clinton. Although Clinton’s favorable ratings
have fallen by nine points since Clinton resigned as secretary of state,
her new popularity suggests she has weathered the scrutiny and strains of
high political office better than the president has.

Clinton is now seen by the public as the stronger leader. A CNN/ORC poll
carried out this month offered a direct comparison of the characteristics
of both politicians, and in every category, Clinton beats Obama. By
double-digit leads, Clinton is seen by more people as a decisive leader and
able to manage government effectively. More people also believe Clinton
“generally agrees with you on issues you care about,” cares about “people
like you,” as well as “sharing your values.” Although it’s not a direct
comparison, the same poll puts Clinton on a 59 percent job approval rating
from her time as secretary of state. Obama has a 41 percent approval rating.

Some of the groups who have felt alienated by the Obama presidency are
being won round by Clinton. Take Wall Street, always one of the president’s
most complicated relationships. Although Wall Street financiers raised over
$12 million during Obama's last campaign, few financiers appear to have
much love for the president. It was his administration that pushed the
Dodd-Frank banking reforms into law, and Obama said recently that “further
reforms” are required. As one banker put it to CNN Money: “There's been so
much finger pointing. He's made it seem bad to be successful and to be
millionaires and billionaires.”

But Clinton has cultivated a warmer relationship with Wall Street. Last
week, she spoke at the Ameriprise Financial Conference in Boston — adding
to her frequent visits to Goldman Sachs and to investors such as those from
The Carlyle Groups. Going back to 1999, Clinton backed the repeal of the
Glass-Steagall banking law, which some, including potential 2016 candidate
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), believe played a part in the financial
crisis. Clinton’s popularity on Wall Street may help her against
Republicans if the GOP chooses an openly critical candidate in 2016, such
as Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) or Ted Cruz (Tex.). But Jeb Bush might pose more
of a threat; a top Republican lawyer recently told Politico that he would
“love” a Clinton vs. Bush race in 2016, as “either outcome would be fine.”

On foreign policy, look for Clinton to contrast her more hawkish tendencies
with the Obama administration’s approach. During an interview on CNN on
Sunday, Clinton appeared to criticize the Obama administration's
interactions with other nations. “How do we try to enlist the rest of the
world in this struggle between cooperation and order and conflict and
disorder, which is really at the root of so much that's going on today? And
I don't think we've done a very good job of that,” she said. She also noted
the popularity of George W. Bush in Africa because of his efforts to battle
AIDS there. He made me “proud to be an American again,” Clinton said.

Clinton’s message was clear when she was secretary of state — “the United
States is back.” She was keener to intervene in Libya, favored keeping
troops on the ground in Iraq and infamously voted for invading Iraq in
2002, before trying to distance herself from that vote during the 2008
presidential primaries.

Obama has sought to end wars and bring troops home. Last month, the
president said that U.S. troops could not solve Iraq’s problems and that
it’s up to Iraqis to work out a solution.

While Obama has taken flak for what some call his administration's use of
‘soft power,’ Clinton has skillfully managed to separate herself from the
president, despite once being a key part of his team and directing U.S.
foreign policy.