Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday January 30, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:28:26 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday January 30, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@RepHastingsFL
<https://twitter.com/RepHastingsFL/> in @SunSentinel
<https://twitter.com/SunSentinel/>: @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/> has the "strong vision [and] strong
record" to be president. sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commen…
<http://t.co/tRsi1q9QOG> [1/30/15, 8:57 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/561161205306253312>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/>'s "devotion to improving the lives of
others" is "admirable and inspiring," says @RepHastingsFL
<https://twitter.com/RepHastingsFL/> sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commen…
<http://t.co/tRsi1q9QOG> [1/30/15, 9:51 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/561174769370800130>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Run, Hillary, Run" - @RepHastingsFL
<https://twitter.com/RepHastingsFL/> writes in @SunSentinel
<https://twitter.com/SunSentinel/> why he'll back@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/> if she runs in 2016
sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commen… <http://t.co/tRsi1q9QOG> [1/30/15, 10:56
a.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/561191157628030979>]

*Headlines:*

*BuzzFeed: Ready For Hillary Ramps Up Its Outreach To Faith Leaders
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/ready-for-hillary-ramps-up-its-outreach-to-faith-leaders?utm_term=.wpJzNJXA1#.mijmGGrP3>*

“Ready for Hillary, the political action committee that raised $12 million
in 2014 in anticipation of Hillary Clinton’s announcement to run for
president in 2016, has been reaching out to faith groups this month.”

...

"In addition to Burns Strider, senior adviser to Clinton in her 2008
campaign for faith and values outreach and the Rev. Leah Daughtry, Joshua
DuBois, former head of the White House Office of Faith Based and
Neighborhood Partnerships, joined to discuss what the Obama campaign built
in 2008."

*CNN: Jim Webb: Democrats need to focus more on 'white, working people'
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/30/politics/jim-webb-white-working-people/index.html>*

“Like other Democrats toiling about a presidential run, Webb declined to
directly attack Clinton.”

*Washington Post: Rand Paul tweets fake phone call between Jeb Bush and
Hillary Clinton. Internet yawns.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/rand-paul-tweets-fake-phone-call-between-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-internet-yawns/>*

“He tweeted out a fake phone call between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton that
hits them on their dynastic roots.  Yes, the son of a three-time
presidential candidate/Texas Congressman is hitting someone else for coming
from a political family.”

*Bloomberg View: Hillary Clinton's Late Start Won't Stop the Punches
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-30/hillary-clinton-s-late-start-won-t-stop-the-punches>*

“So Hillary Clinton is thinking about delaying the start of her
presidential campaign until the summer, according to Politico's Mike Allen.
As a strategic move, this makes sense to me: Why spend money and time
getting a head start in a race where she has no credible opponent?”

*Washington Examiner: American Crossroads takes aim at Hillary Clinton,
stays out of GOP primary
<http://american%20crossroads%20takes%20aim%20at%20hillary%20clinton%2C%20stays%20out%20of%20gop%20primary/>*

“American Crossroads is coming for Hillary Clinton, and soon. The premiere
Republican-aligned super PAC plans to spend many months targeting the
likely Democratic presidential nominee before the Republicans have chosen a
candidate.”

*Bloomberg: How Bored Are Reporters by the Clinton Restoration?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-30/how-bored-are-reporters-by-the-clinton-restoration->*

“Very, very bored… The most in-your-face evidence this week came in the
Washington Post and the New York Times, both of which published big, fun
take-outs by two of their best writers on presidential campaigns that are
not happening—but, you know, if they did, would really roil the Hillary
Clinton juggernaut.”

*Articles:*

*BuzzFeed: Ready For Hillary Ramps Up Its Outreach To Faith Leaders
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/ready-for-hillary-ramps-up-its-outreach-to-faith-leaders?utm_term=.wpJzNJXA1#.mijmGGrP3>*

By Darren Sands

January 30, 2015 12:12 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] It went much better than another recent meeting between
Democratic leadership and black clergy, sources say.

WASHINGTON — Ready for Hillary, the political action committee that raised
$12 million in 2014 in anticipation of Hillary Clinton’s announcement to
run for president in 2016, has been reaching out to faith groups this month.

Just hours before the State of the Union address on Jan. 20, Ready for
Hillary held an introductory call to rally clergy — many who supported
Obama in the 2008 primary election — on what role they might play in 2016.

In addition to Burns Strider, senior adviser to Clinton in her 2008
campaign for faith and values outreach and the Rev. Leah Daughtry, Joshua
DuBois, former head of the White House Office of Faith Based and
Neighborhood Partnerships, joined to discuss what the Obama campaign built
in 2008. The faith community was instrumental “in moving the needle, and
taking the temperature of the American people” in 2008, DuBois said,
according to a source.

Outreach to the black faith community has played a significant role in the
Obama administration, though not all Democratic outreach has gone smoothly
recently. Months before the Ready for Hillary call, a similar kind of
meeting — this one in Washington, D.C. — between national Democrats didn’t
go as planned.

Three sources confirmed a meeting between black clergy members and DNC
leadership, including DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, took place
at the Democratic National Committee last month.

The group, one source said, felt slighted that DNC leaders seemed to differ
on the level of importance placed on the meeting; another source said DNC
leaders showed up to the meeting late and left early.

A DNC official confirmed the meeting in a email statement BuzzFeed News,
but said the departure was related to Wasserman Schultz’s other role.

“We value these relationships highly but the congresswoman was pulled out
of the meeting on congressional business,” the official said. “She followed
up with the attendees immediately and maintains a dialogue with those in
attendance.”

Barbara Williams-Skinner, president of Skinner Leadership Institute, a
leadership conference for black ministers, confirmed her own attendance at
the meeting but did not want to rehash the particulars.

“It’s just not helpful,” she said. “We’re trying to do something positive
and we’ve got a big agenda of advancing African-American interests. You’re
bringing up old stuff that was just a misunderstanding.”

The call with clergy leaders with Ready for Hillary “didn’t feel like it
was reactive to anything,” said a source with direct knowledge of the Jan.
20 call. “It would was more pulling back and refocusing on who Secretary
Clinton is and how she is setting an independent agenda.”

“African-American pastors did a lot of getting out the vote, not just for
candidates but for progressive issues as well,” said a Democratic political
operative with strong ties to faith-based organizations across the nation.
“I think, beyond that, they want to think about what the party’s
relationship is with them. Party officials want to know what concerns
they’re hearing from people in the pews. They want to know how they can be
more responsive to concerns.”

Quentin James, black Americans director for Ready for Hillary, who
confirmed the political action committee’s outreach to ministers, said
building a coalition of faith leaders around issues early is key for
Hillary Clinton’s momentum should she decide to run this spring.

“The purpose of our call was to start our outreach to the faith community
because we realize they’re going to play a very important role in
determining the next president of the United States,” he said. “Secretary
Clinton has a long history for working closely with that community, so as
we’re organizing, we know we must engage them in this movement.”

*CNN: Jim Webb: Democrats need to focus more on 'white, working people'
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/30/politics/jim-webb-white-working-people/index.html>*

By Dan Merica

January 30, 2015

Washington (CNN) If Jim Webb had his way, the Democratic Party would return
to its "Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson roots" and put a
greater focus on "white, working people."

Webb, the former Democratic senator from Virginia who is entertaining a run
2016 presidential nomination, told NPR Friday morning that his party has
not focused enough on white, working class voters in the past elections. In
order to be successful in the future, Webb said, that will need to change.

"I think they could do better with white, working people and I think this
last election showed that," Webb said, referencing the 2014 midterms where
Republicans took control of the Senate and added more power in the House.
"The Democratic Party could do very well to return to its Franklin
Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson roots where the focus of the party
was making sure that all people who lack a voice in the corridors of power
could have one through the elected represented."

Pressed on his statement by NPR's Steve Inskeep, Webb said that he doesn't
think Democrats' distancing from white, working people was a byproduct of
President Barack Obama's election.

"This was happening before President Obama," Webb said.

Looking ahead to a 2016 race that he may run in, Webb added: "You are not
going to have a situation again where you have 96% of the African American
vote turning out for one presidential candidate. ... We need to get back to
the principles of the Democratic Party that we are going to give everyone
who needs access to the corridors of power that access regardless of any of
your antecedents. I think that is a fair concept."

In 2012, the last presidential election, Republican Mitt Romney won nearly
60% of all white voters, compared to Obama's 40%. That difference is an
increased split from 2008, when Obama won 43% of the white vote and
Republican John McCain won 55%.

If Webb were to enter the 2016 presidential race, he would do so as a
longshot candidate. Not only would he likely be challenging Hillary Clinton
for the 2016 nomination, but he told Inskeep that raising money would be a
big challenge.

Like other Democrats toiling about a presidential run, Webb declined to
directly attack Clinton.

"I really don't have an answer for you on that," he said when asked how he
would differentiate himself with the former secretary of state. "She has
not announced that she is running, I haven't announced that I am running.
If I were to run, it would not be as a counterpoint to her. I have issues
that I care about, I want to put them on the table and we'll see."

*Washington Post: Rand Paul tweets fake phone call between Jeb Bush and
Hillary Clinton. Internet yawns.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/rand-paul-tweets-fake-phone-call-between-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-internet-yawns/>*

By Nia-Malika Henderson

January 30, 2016 9:16 a.m. EST

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) seems not so much to be running for President, but
King of the Internet or King of Silly Snark instead.

The latest?

He tweeted out a fake phone call between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton that
hits them on their dynastic roots.  Yes, the son of a three-time
presidential candidate/Texas Congressman is hitting someone else for coming
from a political family.

You see, Paul really doesn't like that the same candidates run again and
again and thinks the American public shouldn't either.  (Sidenote: Ron Paul
ran for president in 1988, 2008 and 2012.)

As for the phone call here's the "transcript" (or listen here):

BUSH: “Hey, Hill. It’s Jeb.”

CLINTON: “Hey, Jeb. To what do I owe this pleasure?”

BUSH: “Well, it’s true.  I’m thinking about running for president.”

CLINTON: “Well, Jeb, so am I.”

BUSH: “I just wanted to call and give you a heads-up in hopes we could work
something out.”

CLINTON: “What do you mean, Jeb? It’s clearly my turn: Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Now, Clinton.”

BUSH: “Well, Hillary, there hasn’t been a Republican White House without a
Bush since 1977, and we’re ready to be back.”

CLINTON: “Let me shoot straight with you, Jeb, OK? Bill and I are dead
broke and need a place to stay. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is calling me
home. I’ve still got the back door key. Being president offers a lot more
job security than writing another memoir.”

BUSH: “Well, the Bushes have weathered attacks before. And read my lips,
Hillary: We’re not backing down this time.”

CLINTON: “Well, you’re right. Maybe we can work something out. We both
agree on so many issues: bigger government, Common Core, and amnesty for
illegal immigrants.”

BUSH: “Well, we’ve both got problems. You’ve got problems with the grass
roots, and I’ve got all those damn conservatives. What say, we make a deal?”

(Call beeps in.)

BUSH: “Sorry, Hillary, but I have to go. Mitt keeps calling.”

CLINTON: “Oh, for crying out loud.”

First off, kudos to the woman voicing Clinton, she really nails it.

But really, the question for Paul, is why?  Why bother?  Why the snark?
Especially over having a name that's famous in presidential politics?
Someone at Paul's political action committee thought this was a good idea.
Perhaps it would go viral. Perhaps the youngsters on the Twitter would love
it. Maybe it would make Paul seem hip.  But the pursuit of cool never ends
well.

Some Twitter reviews that should worry the Paul camp:

(That last one comes from someone who has sent 51,000 tweets.)

We've written before about how Paul is like a boxer in the ring taking
swings at everyone in sight. He is expending a lot of time and energy and
the race hasn't even really started yet. Paul wants to maintain his image
as "the most interesting man in politics," yet the fights and Internet
gimmicks make him look undisciplined and less than serious.  There's a fine
line between being clever and childish and Paul seems to be teetering on
the edge.

*Bloomberg View: Hillary Clinton's Late Start Won't Stop the Punches
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-30/hillary-clinton-s-late-start-won-t-stop-the-punches>*

By Megan McArdle

January 30, 2015 1:18 p.m. EST

So Hillary Clinton is thinking about delaying the start of her presidential
campaign until the summer, according to Politico's Mike Allen. As a
strategic move, this makes sense to me: Why spend money and time getting a
head start in a race where she has no credible opponent? All this could
possibly do is give her time to make gaffes and give her opponents insights
they could use to get a jump on their campaigns against her.

Of course, they'll be doing that anyway. All across the land, there are
nameless moles digging through Clinton's every utterance ... every Gawker
post, every speech video and high school term paper. And at every campaign
office, people are even now mapping out the strategies that our
presidential hopefuls will use to run against her.

The advantage of being the front-runner is that she has all the money
locked up, and she won't need to run to her left in the primaries in order
to placate the base. The disadvantage is that she has no idea who she is
running against, while everyone else knows exactly what they will be
fighting. They'll have over a year to lock in their message -- no, better
than that, they'll be able to start their campaigns against her during the
primaries, while she can't mount an effective response until she knows who
her opponent will be. Any rejoinder she makes before then will only serve
to raise the profile of the people making the most effective criticisms.

Meanwhile, she'll need to spread her opposition research across multiple
candidates, while all of theirs is laser-focused on her. To be sure, she'll
also benefit from the research they do on each other. But of course, the
winning candidate will also have the benefit of everyone else's
anti-Hillary research operations -- and they're more likely to pool their
research for the general campaign, while they probably won't be sharing any
unused tidbits with the Democrats.

Overall, I wonder if this early lead won't ultimately turn out to be a
disadvantage, not just because the candidates will be focused on her, but
because the public will be, too. By the time she actually gets around to
running against an opponent, she will already largely be defined in the
public mind, and not by her side. People will have been listening to
Republican campaigns talking about Hillary Clinton more than they'll have
been listening to her talk about herself.

Her best hope is a bruising primary season from which the Republican victor
staggers forward, bloody and battered and ready for Clinton to deliver the
killing blow. That wouldn't exactly be surprising, given the last race. But
I suspect that by then, Clinton will be nursing a few wounds herself.

*Washington Examiner: American Crossroads takes aim at Hillary Clinton,
stays out of GOP primary
<http://american%20crossroads%20takes%20aim%20at%20hillary%20clinton%2C%20stays%20out%20of%20gop%20primary/>*

By David M. Drucker

January 30, 2015 5:00 a.m. EST

American Crossroads is coming for Hillary Clinton, and soon.

The premiere Republican-aligned super PAC plans to spend many months
targeting the likely Democratic presidential nominee before the Republicans
have chosen a candidate.

According to the PAC's president and CEO, Steven Law, American Crossroads
will start off with opposition research and polling. Paid advertising to
undermine Clinton's candidacy will come later.

Law detailed the approach of American Crossroads, which was formed in 2010
by former White House strategist Karl Rove, during an interview with the
Washington Examiner. Rather than indiscriminate attacks, Law's 2016 goal is
to digest and analyze all of the information American Crossroads compiles
on President Obama’s former secretary of state, and chart a disciplined,
competent battle plan that doesn’t backfire on Republicans.

“My concern about Hillary is that [there] are new micro groups starting up
on almost a weekly basis, all which have as their mission to destroy
Hillary, and I worry that there’s potentially a thin line that could be
crossed from somebody being a pariah and somebody being a victim,” Law
said. “A surgical approach is a lot more effective than just
carpet-bombing, and so we’re going to try to develop a sense of doctrine
ourselves about what the most effective way would be to challenge her and
the right timing for that and the right messages and the right audience.”

American Crossroads, which is still advised on an unpaid basis by Rove,
picked sides in a few Senate primaries in 2014, supporting so-called
Establishment candidates. But Law confirmed that the super PAC would not
play in the 2016 presidential primary, instead husbanding its resources for
the fight against Clinton. The launch this month of Senate Leadership Fund,
a dedicated super PAC to support Republican Senate candidates in 2016, also
run by Law, frees up American Crossroads to attend more exclusively to the
presidential contest.

The Republican field of potential White House candidates is crowded with
sitting senators, sitting governors, former governors and private sector
entrants. The primary could be a super slugfest for the next 15 months,
with a presumed nominee possibly not emerging until April of 2016, just
three months before the GOP’s national convention kicks off in Cleveland on
July 18.

Federal law prohibits presumed nominees from accessing funds raised for the
general election prior to being officially crowned as the party standard
bearer at the nominating convention. American Crossroads is focused on
filling the void between then and now, an 18-month period. Law wants
American Crossroads to help prevent a repeat of 2012, when GOP nominee Mitt
Romney had trouble defending against Obama’s attacks over the summer
because he couldn’t use money he’d raised for November.

Law said American Crossroads has a projected budget for the presidential
race but would only describe it as “plenty.” The group has a mixed record
on effectiveness. American Crossroads and its nonprofit sister
organization, Crossroads GPS, spent $50 million on direct advocacy in House
and Senate races in the 2014 cycle, which ended with decisive GOP gains in
both chambers; but it also spent more than $85 million against Obama in
2012, which came to nothing as the president handily defeated Romney and
his party picked up seats.

Law is still considering the best way for American Crossroads to make an
impact in 2016.

“It’ll be important for groups like ours,” Law said, “to fill the
interregnum period between when the nominee is selected by our party and
when they’re actually able to step into the ring.”

Law said American Crossroads and other entities were active on this front
in 2012, but he believes they missed a critical strategic element that
might have helped Romney: positive ads to build up the Republican, not just
attack ads seeking to tear down the Democrat.

“The part that was not present [in 2012] that I think everyone would have
to take a hard look at is defending the nominee as opposed to defining the
opponent. That’s something that I think everybody’s going to have to sort
through,” Law said.

*Bloomberg: How Bored Are Reporters by the Clinton Restoration?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-30/how-bored-are-reporters-by-the-clinton-restoration->*

By David Weigel

January 30, 2015 10:52 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Fantasy campaigns break out across America.

Very, very bored. On a boredom scale of "Michael Bay action scene" to
"Ingmar Bergman dinner scene," we are somewhere near that part of Shame in
which Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow eat potatoes. The most in-your-face
evidence this week came in the Washington Post and the New York Times, both
of which published big, fun take-outs by two of their best writers on
presidential campaigns that are not happening—but, you know, if they did,
would really roil the Hillary Clinton juggernaut.

On Wednesday, the Post's Ben Terris asked why Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown
was not being promoted by progressives for a 2016 bid. The answer, midway
through the piece, was the same as it had been for years: "He’s an older
white guy." A Democratic Party that has made up for losses with white male
voters by stronger identity politics and turnout with everyone else was not
inclined to block the first serious female presidential candidate with a
white guy. (At 62, Brown is just five years younger than Hillary Clinton.)
Brown really didn't sound bothered by it.

"I don’t say, ‘I’m not running now,’" he told Terris. "I don’t know what it
is. I know you don’t believe this, but I don’t really think about it all
that much."

The big question in Terris's piece was why progressive groups were boosting
Elizabeth Warren (who is 65) instead of Brown. The cynical reason, that
Warren is better for building lists of names and raising money, was elided.
The progressive movement-building is a larger part of Amy Chozick's
"Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren Could Delight Republicans," the news
hook of which is the much-hyped wave of "Run Warren Run" happening this
weekend.

Chozick focuses on a few undeniable facts. One: Clinton has struggled to
adapt to the populism embodied by Warren and Brown, and Republicans are
still mocking her for muffing a line about how "corporations don't create
jobs" when campaigning at the same event as Warren. (She meant "tax breaks
for corporations," which still doesn't sound like her.) Republicans and
progressives have tried to brand the woman who lapped Barack Obama with
working-class white Democrats as a rich banister, and the branding has sort
of worked.

Two: Republicans, facing a cacophonous primary currently led by 1) the
loser of the 2012 presidential race, 2) the brother of the unpopular last
Republican president, 3) a neurosurgeon, and 4) the senator son of the
GOP's iconic gold bug and isolationist, would really like the Democrats to
join them in disarray. Chozick quotes Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachmann, Rush
Limbaugh, the editor of the Arkansas Project's own American Spectator, and
the executive director of America Rising, the conservative PAC that tracks
Democrats and has been trolling Warren to enter the race against Clinton.
(A sample: "Warren Takes Shots at Clinton in Key AFL-CIO Speech.")

The assumption is not that Warren would beat Clinton. That's smart: There's
little evidence that she could. A Fox News poll released this week has been
covered as worrying for Clinton, as her total support from Democrats (the
390 polled by Fox, anyway) had fallen from a high of 69 percent to a
post-State Department low of ... 55 percent. Her nearest rival was not
Warren, but Vice President Joe Biden; they polled at 12 percent and 17
percent respectively. If Clinton decided against a run, the frontrunner
would be Biden, not Warren, with a 37-21 lead.

For comparison, at this point in the 2008 cycle, the week Clinton actually
entered that race and John Kerry abandoned it, Fox emerged with a poll
showing Clinton's strongest numbers—43 percent against the field. Barack
Obama, who was not as well known with Democrats then as Biden is now,
polled at 15 percent.

But 2008, exciting as it was, was not a policy contest that dragged any
Democrat to an extreme. That's the conservative theory of goading a
progressive to challenge Hillary—and it's based on a calcified idea of what
the "extremes" are. In this theory, a law professor who was once registered
Republican is more "left-wing" than Saul Alinsky scholar Hillary Clinton or
socialist conference attendee Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton's fumbling
attempt to say the tax code shouldn't include corporate giveaways was like
a lost verse from L'Internationale. As we all know, attacking corporations
and saying they benefit from the tax code is left-wing.

Hang on. What was it Sarah Palin said in Iowa a few years ago?

Casting herself as the ultimate outsider, the former Alaska governor used a
Tea Party rally to chastise the President and a “permanent political class”
that she said has protected their powers and enriched them, their friends,
and their contributors at the expense of ordinary Americans and the
country’s well-being.

“There is a name for this,” Palin said. “It’s called corporate crony
capitalism. It’s not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of
innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is
the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts . . .
and influence peddling and corporate welfare.”

When Sarah Palin says the political system is rigged for corporations, it's
Tea Party populism. When Elizabeth Warren says it, it's red-flag socialism.
Isn't it more likely that both are explicating a popular political concept,
and that both parties are going to try to perfect that in 2016? If so, the
idea that Hillary Clinton would hurt herself by unconvincingly appealing to
the left is sound. Right now, Democratic voters mostly want her to be
president, and the left is not trying to make her as much as it's trying to
make the Democrats understand how popular this rhetoric is.