Subject: Correct The Record Friday January 23, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:59:54 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday January 23, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*National Journal: “Clinton Ally Defending Her From Keystone Attacks”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-ally-defending-her-from-keystone-attacks-20150122>*

[Subtitle:] “The Democratic opposition research firm Correct the Record is
touting her record on energy.”

*Politico: “McDonough: Hillary ‘would be a very good president’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/denis-mcdonough-on-hillary-clinton-114496.html?hp=lc2_4>*

“After working closely with Clinton during her four years as secretary of
state and having a clear understanding of how the presidency works,
McDonough said he’s optimistic about her ability to do the job. ‘She would
be a very good president.’”

*CNN: “No, Hillary Clinton didn't go to Canada with 65 Secret Service
agents”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/hillary-clinton-secret-service/index.html>*

“Hillary Clinton did not have 65 Secret Service agents protecting her in
Canada on Wednesday, a Secret Service source told CNN, despite a report
from a Canadian radio station to the contrary.”

*Washington Post blog: PostEverything: Andrew Kohut, Pew Research Center
founding director: “Why putting a Bush or Clinton back in the White House
could be harder than you think”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/23/why-putting-a-bush-or-clinton-back-in-the-white-house-could-be-harder-than-you-think/>*

“On all three measures, Hillary Clinton is in a much better position than
Jeb Bush.”

*MSNBC: “A new batch of endorsements for Clinton”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-batch-endorsements-clinton>*

“Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has been laying the groundwork for a
Clinton bid since early 2013, will host an Asian-American and Pacific
Islander fundraiser in Washington Tuesday featuring almost a dozen
Asian-American Democrats in Congress.”

*Boston Globe: “Former Maine senator Olympia Snowe speaks at Symphony Hall”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2015/01/23/olympia-snowe-speaking-lesley-event-says-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-least-partisan-potential-presidential-candidates/roR6NHvN8mCfNRAkoZprWN/story.html>*

“Among the field of presumptive presidential candidates, Snowe said former
secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former Florida governor Jeb Bush are
likeliest to govern in a bipartisan fashion.”

*Articles:*

*National Journal: “Clinton Ally Defending Her From Keystone Attacks”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-ally-defending-her-from-keystone-attacks-20150122>*

By Emily Schultheis

January 22, 2015

[Subtitle:] The Democratic opposition research firm Correct the Record is
touting her record on energy.

Hillary Clinton has long avoided addressing whether she supports the
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline – a project that earns rare
bipartisan support in the Senate but is opposed by the Obama
administration. Her latest dodge came in Canada, where she gave two paid
speeches Wednesday and offered no comment on the subject.

But she's now getting an assist from a leading Democratic opposition
research firm in defending her record on energy. Correct the Record, an arm
of American Bridge which is closely allied with Clinton's campaign, will
release a new report today boosting the former Secretary of State's record
on other energy issues, a move that comes as the new Republican-controlled
Senate debates a Keystone vote.

The report
<http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-smart-energy-innovation/> lists
nine areas where Clinton was involved in energy-related efforts, including
"fighting for clean energy" in the Senate and "prioritizing cleaner energy
worldwide."

Speaking at a "Global Perspectives" event in Winnipeg Wednesday, Clinton
again declined to state her position on the pipeline, a move that dominated
much of the coverage following the speech. "We have differences and you
won't get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made it clear
that I'm not going to express an opinion," she said. "It is in our process
and that's where it belongs." (She's previously said it would be
inappropriate for her to offer a position either way, given her tenure at
State and the State Department's ongoing formal review process.)

The report, titled, "Hillary Clinton: Smart Energy Innovation," doesn't
mention Keystone, but focuses on Clinton's efforts on other aspects of
energy policy from her tenure in the U.S. Senate and as Secretary of State.

"Hillary Clinton's record on energy policy and the environment demonstrates
that she acutely recognizes the challenges and realities we face," Correct
the Record spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said. "She has fought to advance
clean, alternative energy solutions to create jobs, boost our economy and
preserve the environment for future generations."

While in the Senate, Correct the Record notes, Clinton co-sponsored
legislation like the Clean Power Act and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
to encourage better technologies for power plants and vehicles. She also
co-sponsored the Electric Reliability Act to help modernize America's power
grid.

At State, Clinton helped coordinate a regional partnership with other
countries in the Americas to promote clean energy development and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The report also notes her role in launching the
U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative, as well as her efforts to
bring China to the table to cooperate on energy and environmental goals.

Correct the Record has put out similar reports
<http://correctrecord.org/the-record/> to bolster Clinton's record on other
issues: they began with one on the economy
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/hillary-clinton-correct-the-record-2016-elections-economy-105439.html>
last
spring and have hit on the former Secretary of State's record on issues
such as foreign policy, minimum wage raises and education. As the sole
group defending Clinton ahead of her expected 2016 campaign, Correct the
Record has worked to get out ahead of Clinton critics on issues as they
arise.

Keystone, in particular, is a politically fraught issue for Clinton,
because taking a stance either way would disappoint different segments of
the Democratic electorate. By saying she supports construction of the
pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast, Clinton would put
herself at odds with the White House, which has vowed a veto should
Republicans pass legislation approving it. And among key Democratic
constituencies, environmental groups oppose the pipeline, while labor
leaders have said it would help create jobs.

Asked about Clinton's lack of a position Keystone, Watson echoed Clinton's
own rationale for not commenting on the issue.

"Secretary Clinton has repeatedly stated that, as the former Secretary of
State who oversaw the department charged with completing the environmental
assessment of the Keystone project, it would be inappropriate to comment
and risk influencing the process until this assessment is complete."

*Politico: “McDonough: Hillary ‘would be a very good president’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/denis-mcdonough-on-hillary-clinton-114496.html?hp=lc2_4>*

By Jennifer Epstein

January 22, 2015, 1:30 p.m. EST

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough says he’s not losing sleep
thinking about how the dynamic between President Barack Obama and likely
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will shake out as the 2016 campaign
heats up.

“I don’t worry about it,” he said Thursday at a POLITICO Playbook Lunch.
Clinton showed little distance in a speech Wednesday from the positions the
president took during his State of the Union address but left room to
eventually highlight differences, from his right or his left.

After working closely with Clinton during her four years as secretary of
state and having a clear understanding of how the presidency works,
McDonough said he’s optimistic about her ability to do the job. “She would
be a very good president.”

McDonough also described Clinton as “absolutely dogged,” “very strategic”
and a “really … decent and caring person” who “embodies the best of what
I’ve seen in this town.”

McDonough sat down with POLITICO’s Mike Allen just as the White House told
reporters that the president will not be meeting with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a March visit that was first announced
by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who had not consulted with the
White House.

The chief of staff wouldn’t say much about the White House’s reaction to
the invitation but did say that “the president has always seen the
relationship with Israel as something that’s above partisan politics.”

He later added that it’s “not a question of anger so much as a question of
making sure that we’re continuing to apply that historic and traditional
view” about the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship. “I don’t want
to jump to any conclusions” about whether the flap will derail any
relationships.

Drawing on military practice, McDonough’s West Wing forms “red teams” to
address issues. One, led by just-elevated senior adviser Brian Deese, is a
“contingencies group” that began working in the late summer to prepare for
the State of the Union address and the new Congress, McDonough said. Deese
was determined that the lame duck session of Congress last year would be
“the start of a new and refreshing period” instead of the end of an old
period.

Another red team examined the State of the Union address for potential
vulnerabilities and yet another is working on “exactly what we can expect
from our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate” and preparing to
respond to them and work with them.

The White House chose to send Obama to red states —Idaho and Kansas — for
his post-State of the Union tour to emphasize that he is reaching out to
the whole country and not just heavily Democratic states. “By the use of
his time he wants to make clear what he said at the end of his speech,
which is that the country is not as deeply divided” as some in Washington
would suggest, McDonough said.

Many Democrats on Capitol Hill are opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade agreement, but it’s an area where some of the president’s own party
and the vast majority of Republicans agree. Obama is planning to push ahead
aggressively this year, McDonough said. Though the odds seem good for the
administration, “we’re not banking anything — we’re gonna work this hard,”
he said.

McDonough volunteered cybersecurity as another area where he expects to see
Congress and the White House make progress this year.

*CNN: “No, Hillary Clinton didn't go to Canada with 65 Secret Service
agents”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/hillary-clinton-secret-service/index.html>*

By Dan Merica and Cassie Spodak

January 22, 2015, 3:57 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton did not have 65 Secret Service agents protecting her in
Canada on Wednesday, a Secret Service source told CNN, despite a report
from a Canadian radio station to the contrary.

News Talk 980 CJME, a local radio station in Saskatoon, reported on
Wednesday night that a security supervisor from the venue hosting Clinton
said "approximately 65 agents" were in house to protect the former first
lady.

The news ballooned on Thursday morning when the conservative Weekly
Standard cited the radio station in a post, the influential Drudge Report
linked to the story and the anti-Clinton super PAC America Rising blasted
an email to reporters about Clinton's "army of Secret Service agents, paid
for at taxpayer expense."

All of this, however, was incorrect, says a source at the Secret Service.

"Although it's our policy not to discuss specific security measures, in
this instance we can say this number is grossly inaccurate and
exaggerated," the source said.

A Clinton spokesman declined to comment and referred CNN to the Secret
Service.

Because Clinton is a former first lady and secretary of state, she
regularly travels with a cadre of agents who protect her wherever she goes.
When Clinton is traveling for speaking engagements and events, her personal
protection is regularly increased by local agents.

*Washington Post blog: PostEverything: Andrew Kohut, Pew Research Center
founding director: “Why putting a Bush or Clinton back in the White House
could be harder than you think”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/23/why-putting-a-bush-or-clinton-back-in-the-white-house-could-be-harder-than-you-think/>*

By Andrew Kohut

January 23, 2015, 6:00 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Having a familiar last name doesn't ensure a candidate’s
victory. Sometimes it hurts.

The 2016 presidential campaign, now in full swing in the media and the
political class, starts with a fundamental question: How can American
voters, who are so dissatisfied with Washington politics and the state of
the nation, name the wife of one former president, and the son and brother
of two others as top candidates for the White House? National
dissatisfaction is at a dismal 68 percent, and Americans’ confidence in
their government has been in steady decline for years. And yet, voters seem
prepared to put two familiar names — Bush and Clinton — back at the helm.
In recent polls, Hillary Clinton led the Democratic field by an average
49.5 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics. And Jeb Bush led
the crowded GOP field by an average 5.8 percentage points, when Mitt Romney
is taken out of consideration. (When Romney’s name is included, he becomes
the top choice of the Republicans by an average 8.8 percentage points, and
Bush slips into second.)

Though neither has officially declared candidacy, Hillary Clinton and Jeb
Bush would share a common challenge on the campaign trail: How will the
legacies of their familial predecessors effect their chances of winning the
election? Having a familial tie can be a boon for a presidential candidate:
two first sons have risen to the White House. But having a familiar last
name doesn’t ensure a candidate’s victory. Senator Robert A. Taft, eldest
child of President William Howard Taft, sought the Republican nomination
for president three times and failed. The value of being related to a
former president when running for the Oval Office can hinge on several
factors, including the past president’s own popularity, the severity of his
political problems, and how closely voters link him to the legacy
candidate. On all three measures, Hillary Clinton is in a much better
position than Jeb Bush.

For one, Bill Clinton has been a more popular ex-president than George W.
Bush for some time. In a September 2012 Pew Research Center national
survey, President Bill Clinton had a 68 percent favorability rating,
compared to President George W. Bush’s 41 percent. There is some good news
for Jeb Bush: Public opinion of his older brother has become considerably
more positive since then, and the popularity gap with President Bill
Clinton has narrowed. A spring 2014 Gallup Poll found 64 percent of the
public rating Bill Clinton favorably, while Bush’s ratings had climbed to
53 percent. Over time, Americans tend forgive, to some degree, those
presidents who were unpopular when they left office.

Within their own parties, both former presidents have high favorability
ratings from likely voters. However, analysis of data from the 2012 Pew
survey found Clinton’s “very favorable” rating among likely Democratic
voters dwarfed Bush’s comparable rating among likely GOP voters (64 percent
to 39 percent). Given W.’s improved overall ratings, that gap in
likely-voter opinion has probably diminished, but not disappeared.

Still, popularity alone doesn’t ensure former presidents will be assets to
relatives on the campaign trail.  A contentious campaign could resurrect
some highly charged, negative images from President George W. Bush’s and
President Bill Clinton’s pasts, potentially undermining Jeb Bush’s and
Hillary Clinton’s standings. In Hillary Clinton’s case, that means facing
several of her husband’s personal scandals, including Gennifer Flowers,
Whitewater, and Monicagate. For Jeb Bush, it means answering for some of
his brother’s perceived political mistakes: Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and
the Great Recession. All will remind voters in their respective parties of
incidents they would rather forget.

But at this very early stage, a Washington Post/ABC News poll released
Thursday finds Hillary Clinton is suffering less than Jeb Bush from the
negative legacy. A greater number of respondents said Bill Clinton’s
presidency makes them more likely to support Hillary Clinton (23 percent)
than said it makes them less likely to support her (14 percent). And 62
percent say the Bill Clinton presidency makes no impact on their support
for Hillary at all.

Jeb Bush’s family connections are not as positive.  While most respondents
(55 percent) said the Bush presidencies don’t affect their position on Jeb
Bush, when there is an effect, it’s usually negative. In the poll, 33
percent of adults said they are less likely to support Jeb Bush given that
his father and brother served as president, while just 11 percent said
they’re more likely to back him.

Besides the legacy factor, these candidates face another major challenge:
neither is likely to be the first choice of the more ideological wings of
their respective parties. Jeb Bush may well be a hard sell to tea party
Republicans, as he has been seen as not conservative enough on immigration
and economic issues. A mid-December ABC/Washington Post poll of Republican
voters found Jeb Bush leading the field with 14 percent, just ahead of Rand
Paul and Paul Ryan (the poll did not include Romney). But the lead was not
statistically significant, and the pollsters noted that the former Florida
governor lost ground as voters became more conservative: He had 18 percent
among moderate Republican voters, but 12 percent among very conservative
voters. The December CNN/ORC International poll did show Bush significantly
ahead of the rest of the field at 23 percent in its nomination trial heat
(which also didn’t include Romney). But it noted that many Republican
respondents said they were less likely to support him when heard his stance
on important issues for conservatives. When they learned that he never
signed a pledge to oppose all new taxes, 38 percent said they were less
likely to support him. When they found out that he described illegal
immigration as an “act of love” showing concern about families, 42 percent
were less supportive.

At this point there is little indication that liberal Democrats are less
enamored with Hillary Clinton than moderate or conservative party members.
In fact, just the opposite. A February 2014 PRC poll showed 87 percent of
liberals saying they would like to see her run for president, while only
69 percent of other Democrats held that view. However, this preference may
be unlikely to stick. In 2008, liberals backed Clinton over Barack Obama
early on, but by March, they significantly preferred Obama (53 percent) to
the former first lady (36 percent). In contrast, conservative Democrats
were about evenly divided in their preferences for the two leading
candidates.

The increasingly energized liberal wing of the Democratic Party – which has
grown as Democrats have moved left on the role of government, regulation of
business and various social issues – ultimately may be looking for a more
progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton. Gallup reported last week a
record number of self-identified liberals in its national surveys and found
that 43 percent of Democrats identify as liberals. A moderate candidate
like Hillary Clinton, often described as pro-business, might have
difficulty satisfying an increasingly liberal party.

There is a lot to suggest that both legacy front-runners will face
significant challenges to hold their ground, though Jeb Bush appears to be
at a disadvantage. But the economy is a wild card in determining how tough
the road will be for both candidates. It will be a while before voters
fully engage and seriously consider the alternative candidates to the
legacy names, especially on the Democratic side. By then, the positive
impacts of an improved economy may well have reached a larger slice of the
electorate and diminished their appetite for change. In turn, this may well
lessen the electorate’s demand for a fresh name in the White House. In the
end, if the economy improves, both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush will profit.

*MSNBC: “A new batch of endorsements for Clinton”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-batch-endorsements-clinton>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

January 22, 2015, 9:41 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton is still likely several months away from making a
presidential announcement, but she just added a slew of endorsements to her
non-campaign.

Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has been laying the groundwork for a
Clinton bid since early 2013, will host an Asian-American and Pacific
Islander fundraiser in Washington Tuesday featuring almost a dozen
Asian-American Democrats in Congress. The event is part of the super PAC’s
efforts to build a grassroots list of Clinton supporters, while also
getting Democratic officials and officeholders to publicly commit to
Clinton.

Neera Tanden, Clinton’s top policy adviser during her 2008 presidential
campaign and the current president of the Center for American Progress, is
a featured speaker.

Honorary chairs include Sen. Mazie Hirono and 10 members of the House:
Reps. Mike Honda, Doris Matsui, Judy Chu, Ami Bera, Madeleine Bordallo,
Tammy Duckworth, Ted Lieu, Grace Meng, Mark Takai, and Mark Takano.

Other hosts of the event include Democratic policy experts, like Obama
White House economic adviser Ginger Lew, former Clinton White House adviser
Irene Bueno, and Third Way national security director Mieke Eoyang.

Tickets go for the group’s signature $20.16 price, and range up to $500 for
chairs, according to an invitation.

Clinton, who spoke in Canada Wednesday night, is expected to announce her
presidential ambitions in late spring.

*Boston Globe: “Former Maine senator Olympia Snowe speaks at Symphony Hall”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2015/01/23/olympia-snowe-speaking-lesley-event-says-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-least-partisan-potential-presidential-candidates/roR6NHvN8mCfNRAkoZprWN/story.html>*

By Mark Shanahan

January 23, 2015

Former Maine senator Olympia Snowe spoke at Symphony Hall this week as part
of Lesley University’s Boston Speakers Series. The moderate Republican
spent 18 years in the Senate and now toils at the Washington think tank
BipartisanPolicy.org. Among the field of presumptive presidential
candidates, Snowe said former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former
Florida governor Jeb Bush are likeliest to govern in a bipartisan fashion.

*Calendar:*

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

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)

·  March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton
Foundation (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/>
)

·  March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes  American Camp
Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)