Subject: Correct The Record Monday February 9, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:33:42 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday February 9, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*ABC’s The Note: CORRECT THE RECORD ON CLINTON’S MIDDLE CLASS CRED
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/your-2016-weekend-speed-read-the-note/>*

"*CORRECT THE RECORD ON CLINTON’S MIDDLE CLASS CRED: *Today Correct the
Record, a subsidiary of the Democratic super PAC, American Bridge, is
releasing a one-page analysis document, titled “Fighting for America’s
Workers,” that details Hillary Clinton’s achievements when it comes to
creating and sustaining jobs, supporting labor rights and strengthening the
country’s manufacturing base, *ABC’s LIZ KREUTZ* reports."

*National Journal: “Clinton's Greatest Political Strength May Be Hiding in
Plain Sight”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/clinton-s-greatest-political-strength-may-be-hiding-in-plain-sight-20150209>*

“Polls over the past year almost invariably have found Clinton
improving--often substantially--over President Obama's lackluster 2012
performance among white-collar white women.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Is Hillary Clinton ‘likable enough’? And
does it even matter?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/is-hillary-clinton-likable-enough-and-why-does-it-even-matter/>*

“Without that kind of Obama-esque contrast and with many potentially major
issues on the table ahead of the general election, we have a hard time
seeing lots of people voting against Clinton because they don't want to
have a beer with her.”

*The Independent (U.K.): “Boris Johnson to have talks with Hillary Clinton
as London Mayor's roadshow hits the US”
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boris-johnson-to-have-talks-with-hillary-clinton-as-london-mayors-roadshow-hits-the-us-10032526.html>*

“The talks in New York on Wednesday will be the first time Mr Johnson has
met Senator Clinton, although he has previously been introduced to her
husband, former US President Bill Clinton, as well as to President Obama.”

*New York Times: “Working Families Party Calls on Elizabeth Warren to Run
for President”
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/nyregion/working-families-party-calls-on-elizabeth-warren-to-run-for-president.html?referrer=>*

“Leaders of New York’s Working Families Party on Sunday urged Senator
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to seek the Democratic nomination for
president next year, formally calling on her to enter the 2016 race for the
White House.”

*The Hill blog: In The Know: “Hillary vs. Warren would split Hollywood”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/232117-hillary-vs-warren-would-split-hollywood-celebs>*

“A battle between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren could easily
divide entertainers, creating a showdown that might split Hollywood and
force A-list stars to choose sides.”

*New York Post: “Wall Street‘s ‘no lose’ view of 2016”
<http://nypost.com/2015/02/08/wall-streets-no-lose-view-of-2016/>*

“The early voting is in, and Wall Street loves what it sees and hears from
its anointed 2016 front-runners — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican
Jeb Bush (with Chris Christie as a fallback).”

*New York Daily News: “EXCLUSIVE: De Blasio commissioner worked closely
with Hillary Clinton on women's rights”
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-de-blasio-commissioner-hillary-clinton-aide-article-1.2106989>*

“Penny Abeywardena had never met Mayor de Blasio when he reached out to her
about becoming his commissioner for international affairs. But they had a
powerful connection in common — Hillary Clinton.”

*Articles:*

*ABC’s The Note: CORRECT THE RECORD ON CLINTON’S MIDDLE CLASS CRED
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/your-2016-weekend-speed-read-the-note/>*

By Liz Kreutz

February 9, 2015 8:52 a.m. EST

*CORRECT THE RECORD ON CLINTON’S MIDDLE CLASS CRED: *Today Correct the
Record, a subsidiary of the Democratic super PAC, American Bridge, is
releasing a one-page analysis document, titled “Fighting for America’s
Workers,” that details Hillary Clinton’s achievements  when it comes to
creating and sustaining jobs, supporting labor rights and strengthening the
country’s manufacturing base, *ABC’s LIZ KREUTZ* reports. The analysis,
shared first with ABC News, is the most recent in a series of documents the
group has disseminated about Clinton’s work on topics such as the
environment and foreign policy, and specifically mentions what Clinton has
done to help provide workers with paid family and sick leave, expand job
training opportunities for workers, and curb the outsourcing of jobs. *READ
THE DOCUMENT: *http://bit.ly/1DuVLkp

*BACKSTORY: *The latest release from Correct the Record comes a day after
New York’s Working Families Party formally called
<https://twitter.com/WorkingFamilies/status/564581309964902400> on Sen.
Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016. According to a New York
Times report
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0>
over
the weekend, Clinton has been consulting with more than 200 policy experts
to develop an economic platform designed to appeal to both middle class
workers and Wall Street bankers. According to Correct the Record’s
communications director Adrienne Elrod, “Hillary Clinton’s economic vision
remains clear, concise and consistent – that our country must do more to
help the middle class so that all Americans feel and experience the impact
of an improving economy. This can be no better summed up than in Hillary’s
own words, where she recently said, ’No matter who you are or where you
come from, if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll have the
opportunity to build a good life for yourself and your family.’”

*National Journal: “Clinton's Greatest Political Strength May Be Hiding in
Plain Sight”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/clinton-s-greatest-political-strength-may-be-hiding-in-plain-sight-20150209>*

By Ronald Brownstein

February 9, 2015

[Subtitle:] Early polls find Clinton improving substantially over Obama's
lackluster 2012 performance among a key voting demographic.

Much of the debate about Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential appeal to
female voters may be focusing on the wrong group of women.

Probably the most frequently-asked question about Clinton's possible
coalition as a Democratic nominee in 2016 is whether she can win back the
working-class white women who have moved away from her party since 1996. On
that issue, the evidence is ambivalent from months of early polling that
pits Clinton against potential Republican nominees.

But polls over the past year almost invariably have found Clinton
improving--often substantially--over President Obama's lackluster 2012
performance among white-collar white women.

Those college-educated white women have been the fastest-growing part of
the white electorate in recent years. If Clinton as a nominee could cement
the gains she's shown among those women in most national and state polls
over the past year, she would present Republicans with a formidable
demographic challenge, even without improving among any other white voters.
Her greatest potential strength, in other words, may be hiding in plain
sight: her potential connection to the white-collar white women who most
resemble her.

All polls of the 2016 race at this point are recording only distant
impressions long before most voters have seriously focused on their
choices. The actual campaign, and events yet to occur, will inevitably
scramble the equation.

Yet, especially with a candidate as familiar as Clinton, these early
soundings can be viewed as a kind of rebuttable presumption: they sketch
the coalition that may naturally gravitate to her unless opponents present
them with a case not to.

The contours of a potential Clinton coalition were sketched in the three
Quinnipiac University polls released last week in the key swing states of
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Obama won all of them in 2012, and any
Democrat who wins at least two of the three would be in a commanding
position to assemble an Electoral College majority in 2016.

The Quinnipiac results reinforced other early surveys in showing the
potential for Clinton to improve on Obama's 2012 performance among
white-collar white women--and perhaps also notch some gains with their
blue-collar counterparts. Despite all the focus on the gender gap, Obama
won in 2012 while capturing only 42 percent of all white women, according
to exit polls. That was the weakest performance for any Democratic nominee
since Walter Mondale in 1984, leaving plenty of room for Clinton to grow if
she wins the Democratic nomination.

The most consistent note in the new Quinnipiac surveys was Clinton's
strength among college-educated white women. Those women--most of them
liberal on cultural issues and many more open than most other whites to an
activist role for government--have provided Democratic presidential
candidates the most reliable support in the white community since Bill
Clinton's first election. The Democratic presidential nominee carried them
in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008, and essentially split them in 2004. But in
2012, Obama lost ground with them, falling back to 46 percent nationally,
the weakest performance among them for any Democratic nominee since Michael
Dukakis in 1988.

According to detailed results provided by Quinnipiac to Next America, the
new surveys show Clinton notably improving on Obama's performance among
those well-educated white women in each of these three key states. The
Quinnipiac Polls were conducted via landline and cell phone in each state
from January 22 through February 1.

In Florida, Obama won 43 percent of college-educated white women in 2008
and 42 percent in 2012. The new surveys found Clinton drawing 50 percent of
them against former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, 53 percent against New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie, and 55 percent against Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

In Ohio, Obama carried a 52 percent majority of those women in 2008, but
slipped back to 47 percent in 2012, while Mitt Romney won 51 percent.
Compared to Obama's four-point Ohio deficit among the college white women,
the Quinnipiac polls show them providing Clinton an edge of seven points
over Bush, 17 over Christie, and 22 over Paul. (The Ohio poll produced a
much larger undecided share among upscale women than the other two surveys.)

And in Pennsylvania, where Obama won 55 percent of those women in 2008 but
tumbled to just 44 percent in 2012, Clinton displayed the most strength.
The Quinnipiac Polls showed her at 56 percent among them against Christie,
58 percent against Bush, and 62 percent against Paul.

By contrast, the Quinnipiac Polls show considerably less strength for
Clinton among non-college white women. Those so-called waitress moms have
given most of their votes to Republicans in each election since Bill
Clinton carried a plurality of them in 1996. Nationally, Obama carried just
39 percent of them in 2012.

In Florida, Obama won only 36 percent of the "waitress moms" in 2008 and 40
percent in 2012. The Quinnipiac polls place Clinton squarely in that range,
at 36 percent among them against Bush, 41 percent against Paul, and 43
percent against Christie. But because large numbers of these women remain
undecided in the survey, Clinton leads Christie with them, and only trails
Paul narrowly while still facing a double-digit deficit against Bush.

In Ohio, Obama won 44 percent of these women in 2008 and 45 percent in
2012. That wasn't an overwhelming performance, but it was enough above his
national showing to help him carry the state. The Quinnipiac surveys show
Clinton settling exactly in that range, drawing 44 percent against
Christie, and 45 percent against both Bush and Paul. Again, though, because
of a large undecided contingent, Clinton leads against all three with those
women.

The surveys showed Clinton making the clearest gains among blue-collar
women in Pennsylvania. Obama posted nearly identical showings there with
these women--47 percent in 2008 and 46 percent in 2012. Quinnipiac found
Clinton attracting 49 percent of them against both Christie and Bush, and
53 percent against Paul. While Obama lost these women by seven points in
2012 and four in 2008, Clinton leads with them against all three
Republicans.

The results were similar in polls from NBC News and Marist College last
summer in Iowa and New Hampshire. Matched again against Christie, Paul and
Bush, those surveys showed her attracting just under half of non-college
white women in both states. But against all three men, she drew 52-54
percent of college white women in Iowa, and exactly 64 percent of them in
New Hampshire. National Quinnipiac surveys last year testing Clinton
against all three men also put her at 50 percent or more among college-plus
white women, and generally at 40-45 percent among non-college white women.

Veteran Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, a senior strategist for Clinton
during her 2008 primary campaign, notes that she ran very well among
working-class white women during that contest against Obama. "The question
is whether she can reconnect to non-college educated white women the same
way she was doing at the end of her 2008 campaign," Garin says. "If she
can, that has the potential to change the arithmetic. But I think that
answer is yet to be determined." By contrast, he said, there's more
evidence in early polling that college white-women "are with her. We see
that very clearly."

With other groups of voters, the new Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Quinnipiac polls show Clinton largely tracking Obama's 2012 performance.
The polls give her cavernous leads among African-Americans--though with a
large undecided bloc, her support doesn't yet quite match Obama's 2012
performances in Ohio and Florida. (It's already close in Pennsylvania.) Her
showings in the three states among white men without a college education
are consistently weak, but not noticeably worse than Obama's numbers with
them when he won each of these three states twice. In Ohio, for instance,
Obama won 44 percent of blue-collar white men in 2008 and 39 percent in
2012. The Quinnipiac polls put Clinton at 39 percent of them against
Christie, 40 percent against Paul, and 42 percent against Bush, (Again,
because a substantial portion remains undecided, Clinton's deficits in the
polls among these men in all three states are much smaller than Obama's in
2012.)

Her performance among college-educated white men in the surveys also
generally follows close to Obama's share in 2012. In Ohio, for instance,
Obama tumbled from 47 percent with those men in 2008 to 33 percent in 2012;
Clinton draws 34 percent of them against Christie, 35 percent against Bush,
and 37 percent against Paul. The same caveat applies to these results:
because of large undecided populations, her deficits among these men are
much smaller than Obama's in 2012.

Still, these polls present results that are largely consistent across the
states--and also consonant with those other national and state polls
measuring Clinton's early appeal. Almost everything could change once the
campaign is actually joined. But for now, surveys like these Quinnipiac
polls generally show some modest opportunities for Clinton to improve among
working-class white women and little change relative to Obama's meager 2012
standing among both blue-collar and white-collar men. With minority voters,
she remains in a very strong position, though Republicans argue it's
unproven that African-Americans will turn out for her at the rates they did
for Obama.

The big opening signaled by these polls is her opportunity to recover from
Obama's 2012 trough among college-educated white women. That's an
especially ominous prospect for Republicans because those upscale women
have steadily increased their share of the electorate since the 1980s. If
those trends continue, in 2016 they could cast more of the national vote
than either college or non-college white men, or the waitress moms.
Clinton's biggest boost over Obama might come from nothing more complex
than consolidating her most natural supporters.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Is Hillary Clinton ‘likable enough’? And
does it even matter?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/is-hillary-clinton-likable-enough-and-why-does-it-even-matter/>*

By Aaron Blake

February 9, 2015, 6:30 a.m. EST

A new poll of the 2016 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary shows
pretty much what every other poll has shown: Hillary Rodham Clinton leads
by a very wide margin.

The University of New Hampshire survey shows the former secretary of state
taking 58 percent of the vote. It also shows about six in 10 likely
Democratic primary voters consider her the strongest leader (58 percent)
and about two-thirds say she would have the best odds of winning in the
general election (66 percent) and has the most experience to be president
(68 percent).

But then there are a couple of other ways in which the poll asked voters to
compare Clinton to her fellow Democrats. In contrast to the numbers above,
only about one-third viewed Clinton as the "most believable" (31 percent),
and about the same proportion labeled her the "most likable" (32 percent).

If you just had a little twinge of deja vu, it's because this question has
stalked Clinton before. Back in the 2008 Democratic primary, there was
plenty of chatter about precisely how likable she was and whether it was
holding her campaign back.

The culmination of this was Clinton being asked -- at a New Hampshire
debate, no less -- about these criticisms. "Well that hurts my feelings,"
she deadpanned. Barack Obama then interjected, in a moment of unhelpful
candor, that Clinton was "likable enough."

So, to recap, six in 10 New Hampshire Democratic primary voters think
Clinton is their candidate, but just three in 10 say she's the most likable.

On some level, we'll concede, this is kind of dumb. Many think that the
likability question is asked of Clinton only because she's a woman, and
that men aren't held to the same standards. My colleague Nia-Malika
Henderson noted this alleged dichotomy last month, with one noted expert
saying voters do indeed judge female candidates on likability in a way that
doesn't apply to men.

But regardless of whether it's fair, it's a question that has followed
Clinton. And even if it's a double standard, it's still a potentially real
factor for her when it comes to getting people to vote for her -- at least
theoretically.

The good news for Clinton is that, at least at the outset of the 2016
campaign, it's less an issue than it was for her in 2008.

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center last year showed that 36
percent of Americans said Clinton was "hard to like." That number was 51
percent in March 2008 and 53 percent in April 2008, at the height of her
primary contest with Obama.

But it's not just Republicans who consider this a problem for her. Twenty
percent of Democrats said she was "hard to like," along with 39 percent of
independents. Those are real numbers.

The question from there, though, is does it even matter? Even if it is a
hindrance for Clinton, it seems pretty unlikely that it would lose her a
primary in which she is the overwhelming favorite. From there, in the
general election, partisanship largely takes over, and there are very few
voters who are actually up for grabs and could potentially be swayed by
whatever likability issues Clinton has.

And even if a fair amount of swing voters think Clinton is "hard to like,"
that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't vote for her. Other
considerations, after all, do come into play.

The likability thing might have hurt Clinton somewhat in a primary with the
buzzy and very personally likable Obama. And it's possible that it could
flare up again as the 2016 campaign gets off the ground.

But without that kind of Obama-esque contrast and with many potentially
major issues on the table ahead of the general election, we have a hard
time seeing lots of people voting against Clinton because they don't want
to have a beer with her.

*The Independent (U.K.): “Boris Johnson to have talks with Hillary Clinton
as London Mayor's roadshow hits the US”
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boris-johnson-to-have-talks-with-hillary-clinton-as-london-mayors-roadshow-hits-the-us-10032526.html>*

By Pippa Crerar

February 8, 2015

Boris Johnson will sit down for talks with Hillary Clinton this week during
a six-day US tour seen by some as preparation for a future Conservative
leadership bid.

The Mayor of London’s meeting with the former US Secretary of State, the
Democrat frontrunner to be the next President, is his highest profile yet
in a busy few months of building relationships with international power
brokers.

On Sunday night Mr Johnson told The Independent he was “reconciled” to
people reading whatever they wanted into his foreign visits but claimed his
primary aim was to promote London rather than himself.

The Mayor, who has been eager to demonstrate a more statesmanlike image
before the general election, also hopes to visit Japan, Israel and Turkey
before the end of his mayoralty in 2016, although this could be difficult
to combine with a cabinet post.

He has been selected as Tory candidate for Uxbridge and South Ruislip in
the general election, and is expected to be fast-tracked to the front bench.

His aides denied the US trip was deliberately timed to generate maximum
coverage just a few months before the general election, claiming it had
been years in the planning.

The first part of the tour – which begins in Boston before heading to New
York and Washington – could be hit by bad weather. The Boston authorities
are advising people to stay at home because of the threat of a severe snow
storm.

Last month Mr Johnson flew to meet the Kurdish Prime Minister. He was
pictured taking aim with an AK47 alongside Peshmerga soldiers fighting
against Isis. Critics in the London Assembly claim he has “mentally checked
out” of his mayoral role.

At the end of last year Mr Johnson spent six days in the Far East, visiting
Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta and Singapore to meet heads of state, in addition to
drumming up business for London. He has already travelled to India, China
and the Gulf on official business.

The talks in New York on Wednesday will be the first time Mr Johnson has
met Senator Clinton, although he has previously been introduced to her
husband, former US President Bill Clinton, as well as to President Obama.

City Hall sources said the pair would discuss the war in Syria and Iraq and
the threat posed by Isis to both the region and Western cities. The
conversation is almost certain to touch on the general election in May and
the US presidential race next year.

Mr Johnson, who was born in New York and has dual citizenship, hopes he
could meet Ms Clinton in future as PM. He also met Republican presidential
hopefuls Jeb Bush and Chris Christie when they visited the UK recently.

The talks with Ms Clinton were confirmed as the Mayor flew into Boston –
and a severe snowstorm – last night on the first day of his whistlestop
tour.

Mr Johnson will visit MIT and Harvard in Boston, hold talks with Mayor Bill
de Blasio of New York in Manhattan and then go on to attend a Congressional
reception being held in Washington, DC.

There will be no shortage of picture opportunities as he meets business
tycoons, top scientists, figures from the worlds of theatre and fashion and
New York City’s police chief “supercop” Bill Bratton.

Mr Johnson will also visit the Smithsonian museum in Washington, which is
considering an outpost in London.

His face will crop up on a host of American television networks – including
CNN and MSNBC – as well as in major newspapers and at a reception hosted by
the British Ambassador in Washington.

*New York Times: “Working Families Party Calls on Elizabeth Warren to Run
for President”
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/nyregion/working-families-party-calls-on-elizabeth-warren-to-run-for-president.html?referrer=>*

By Alexander Burns

February 8, 2015

Leaders of New York’s Working Families Party on Sunday urged Senator
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to seek the Democratic nomination for
president next year, formally calling on her to enter the 2016 race for the
White House.

By voting to encourage a Warren candidacy, the Working Families Party
became the latest liberal group to support her as a potential primary
challenger to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has not
formally announced that she will seek the Democratic nomination but is the
presumed favorite.

Several organizations on the left, led by MoveOn.org and Democracy for
America, have already organized a campaign designed to lure Ms. Warren,
with her brand of economic populism, into making a bid for the presidency.

“We know a champion for working families when we see one,” Bill Lipton, New
York State director of the Working Families Party, said. “The only thing
better than watching Elizabeth Warren take Wall Street to task from the
Senate would be helping her bring our issues to the center of the national
debate.”

Ms. Warren, who is beloved among liberals as a fierce critic of what she
sees as the abuses of the financial industry, has repeatedly ruled out
running for president in 2016. Lacey Rose, a spokeswoman for the senator,
reiterated that stance in an email on Sunday. “As Senator Warren has said
many times, she is not running for president and doesn’t support these
draft campaigns,” Ms. Rose wrote.

The Working Families Party, led by a coalition of activists, liberal
advocacy groups and labor unions, deliberated on an early-evening
conference call before voting to encourage Ms. Warren to join the campaign.
Party officials declined to share the tally of the vote.

The pro-Warren vote comes at a potentially awkward moment for New York
Democrats, who have sought to draw their party’s 2016 presidential
nominating convention to New York City. Mayor Bill de Blasio has
aggressively promoted the bid on the national stage, where Democrats
aligned with Mrs. Clinton hold powerful sway.

Although Mr. de Blasio has a longstanding relationship with the Working
Families Party, party officials said that neither the mayor nor his staff
had played a role in the group’s deliberations involving Ms. Warren.

Several Working Families leaders stressed that the vote was not meant as a
rejection of Mrs. Clinton, who twice earned the party’s endorsement as a
candidate for the United States Senate.

“It’s a vote in the context of two undeclared candidates for president,”
said Ed Ott, former head of the New York City Central Labor Council. “What
the Warren vote reflects is that people want a Democratic Party with a
spine.”

Javier Valdes, executive director of Make the Road Action Fund, a
Latino-oriented liberal group, characterized the vote as a statement of
enthusiasm for a competitive primary. “Secretary Clinton has had a strong
track record with our community and what we really want here is a strong
debate about Democratic values and working family values,” Mr. Valdes, a
Working Families Party leader, said.

*The Hill blog: In The Know: “Hillary vs. Warren would split Hollywood”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/232117-hillary-vs-warren-would-split-hollywood-celebs>*

By Judy Kurtz

February 9, 2015, 6:00 a.m. EST

A battle between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren could easily
divide entertainers, creating a showdown that might split Hollywood and
force A-list stars to choose sides.

The lines are already being drawn in the fight for La La Land’s love, with
the former secretary of State not yet officially in the 2016 Democratic
presidential race and the Massachusetts Democrat professing a lack of
interest.

“They draw on different parts of the artistic community,” Darrell West,
author of the book “Celebrity Politics,” tells ITK. “Warren, being more
liberal, does very well among progressive artists, various Hollywood stars
who worry the Democratic Party has become too centrist.”

Entertainers including Susan Sarandon, Olivia Wilde, Edward Norton and Mark
Ruffalo have all signed on to support Warren. Celebs in the 65-year-old
lawmaker’s camp, West says, welcome her “populist rhetoric.”

After banding together to form a group called “Artists for Warren,” more
than 90 performers penned an open letter last week urging the freshman
senator to make a White House bid.

“Senator Warren, we’re ready to show you that you have the support needed
to enter this presidential race,” the message stated, which was signed by
celebrities including “Fahrenheit 9/11” director Michael Moore, "Big
Love's" Chloe Sevigny, Julia Stiles and Natasha Lyonne, among others.

“There are a lot of people in grassroots organizations pushing for Senator
Warren to run in 2016. This same sentiment exists in the Hollywood
community," Kathryn Cramer Brownell, an assistant professor of history at
Purdue University said.

In a video posted on Vanity Fair’s website, “Firecatcher” and “The
Avengers” star Ruffalo lauded Warren, saying, “She’s someone that gets the
progressive values that I believe we all share.” He added, “We don’t know
that she’s going to run, so we’re sort of taking a leap of faith. But
that’s the only way to really implement the changes that need to be changed
in the world today.”

Clinton, however, generally appeals to a different type of Hollywood
heavyweight, says West, the Brookings Institution’s vice president and
director of governance studies. “I think with Hillary Clinton, she attracts
celebrities who are more pragmatic and are interested in winning,
regardless of what the political message is,” he added.

Some of Hollywood’s biggest A-listers have said they’d buy a ticket to see
Clinton storm the 2016 campaign box office. Music chart topper Katy Perry,
George Clooney, big-time Democratic donor Barbra Streisand, “Happy” singer
Pharrell Williams, Eva Longoria, Ashley Judd, and Elton John have all
expressed support for the former first lady.

Longoria, a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairwoman, said as far back as 2013
that she would “absolutely” campaign for Clinton in the next race for the
White House. “Lord of the Rings” actress Liv Tyler rooted Clinton on during
a 2014 fashion shoot, donning a “Hillary for President” t-shirt in a series
of glam images.

Brownell, the author of the recently released “Showbiz Politics: Hollywood
in American Politics,” says it’ll be “fascinating” to see how Clinton uses
her celeb cache. “I think Hillary Clinton is really a political celebrity
herself,” she said. “I think that Hollywood celebrities will be key in
fundraising for her, using entertainment events to help raise a lot of
money."

“The Clintons have been around for 20 years so they’ve had plenty of
opportunities to cultivate artists and actors. So they’re basically getting
the pragmatic problem-solvers,” West says.

Although Clinton, 67, is a veteran of the political arena, Brownell says
Warren — who has repeatedly denied she’ll be throwing her hat in the
presidential ring in 2016 — may actually come out on top in terms of the
number of Hollywood-types showing her the love. Having “prominent people to
urge her to run created a groundswell of enthusiasm and support" for the
former lawyer and professor, says Brownell. “I think celebrities would play
a more prominent place in her campaign to generate excitement surrounding
the potential of her candidacy."

And while there’s a danger of appearing “too Hollywood,” West says if
Warren or Clinton were to run, they would likely embrace the entertainers
who are publicly cheering them on.

“They provide credibility especially early in a campaign. It’s a way to
demonstrate that your campaign is able to attract famous people,” says
West. “It’s the age of celebrity in which we live, so having star power is
part of contemporary politics.”

*New York Post: “Wall Street‘s ‘no lose’ view of 2016”
<http://nypost.com/2015/02/08/wall-streets-no-lose-view-of-2016/>*

By Charles Gasparino

February 8, 2015, 8:08 p.m. EST

The early voting is in, and Wall Street loves what it sees and hears from
its anointed 2016 front-runners — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican
Jeb Bush (with Chris Christie as a fallback).

The big-bank honchos feel they’re sitting pretty because, as one
private-equity exec put it, “We’re in a no-lose situation” if the above are
the real field. In fact, to the extent that Wall Street loves these three,
they’re in trouble with the rest of the country.

The bankers are right on one thing: For all their philosophical
differences, both parties’ frontrunners are tied tight to the Wall Street
establishment.

But if history’s any guide, that will be a bright red warning sign for
voters in both parties who believe much of the economy needs fundamental
change — and fast.

For all Hillary’s lefty posturing of late (“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s
corporations and businesses that create jobs”), she counts Goldman Sachs
chief Lloyd Blankfein and Blackrock head Larry Fink among her top backers.

Jeb is known for education and other reforms as Florida’s governor, but
he’s spent much of his time since working with the money men — first as a
Lehman Bros. special adviser, then jumping ship to Barclays Capital until
he began exploring a presidential run.

And Christie has some pretty close friends among the banking glitterati
himself — from hedge-fund honcho Steve Cohen, whose firm was indicted in
2013 over insider-trading allegations, to . . . Mrs. Christie, a
bond-market executive for a hedge fund.

OK, there’s nothing necessarily bad about having friends in finance. Yet
the bank lobby ranks among the country’s most self-absorbed, and at times
nefarious, interest groups.

This is the bunch, after all, that got Washington to drop the
Glass-Steagall law and other rules that kept US banks smaller, more
manageable and less risky — but also less profitable.

That is, the banks got so much rope that they nearly hanged themselves in
2008.

These are also the geniuses who plowed big bucks into the coffers of the
“moderate” Barack Obama in the ’08 race — giving the country the least
moderate president in modern history, particularly on the economy.

On the other hand, while Obama’s taxing, spending and regulations continue
to hamper job growth for average Americans, the Dow and the super-rich
bankers are doing great.

And the Wall Street crowd cares much less about the long-term health of the
economy than it does about its cherished bottom line.

So if the bankers are right, whichever of the “top three” wins will end up
focusing on small-fry issues once in the White House, rather than taking on
such big-ticket items as real banking reform or overhauling the whole tax
code.

Yes, people like Fink at Blackrock talk up the need to lower the US
corporate tax rate (now among the world’s highest) to save American jobs.
But I can’t recall the last time old Larry (pay last year: over $22
million) came out swinging to lower taxes for, say, the guy running the
corner deli, or the Westchester family of four that loses more than half
its income to taxes by various layers of government.

The reason, I can only suspect, is that lowering individual income-tax
rates would hurt BlackRock’s business of selling tax-exempt municipal bonds
to everyone trying to escape punitive taxes.

The Wall Street crowd also hates pesky regulations like the Dodd-Frank law,
which prevents the likes of Goldman Sachs from trading its way back to
massive profitability.

But while the bankers want Dodd-Frank tweaks, they have zero interest in
wholesale reform that ends the practice of bailing out banks every time
they screw up, aka Too Big To Fail.

After all, that taxpayer backing (which Dodd-Frank enshrines) guarantees
that the great and powerful will survive the next collapse with new
taxpayer bailouts.

I’m told the bank honchos believe neither Clinton nor Bush nor Christie has
the stomach for a fundamental restructuring of banks that would make them
smaller — and leave more room for banks to lend to small businesses,
because they’d have to hold less in capital as a cushion against ’08-style
losses.

As for tax reform: When was the last time you heard any of the Big Three
discuss a large-scale overhaul of the way the government confiscates what
Americans earn?

The funny thing is, Wall Street could get its “pawn” and find it elected a
pit bull. (I can’t tell you how many times Fink called Obama “a moderate”
back in ’08.)

Or maybe a populist (Liz Warren or Rand Paul), or a no-bull guy like
Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, will hang Wall Street around the front-runners’
necks, changing the debate and the race.

The main thing is: Whenever Wall Street sees a “no-lose situation,” the
rest of America is looking at a no-win one.

*New York Daily News: “EXCLUSIVE: De Blasio commissioner worked closely
with Hillary Clinton on women's rights”
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-de-blasio-commissioner-hillary-clinton-aide-article-1.2106989>*

By Annie Karni

February 8, 2015, 2:30 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The commissioner, who earns $192,198 — the same salary as the
cultural affairs and consumer affairs commissioners — uses her contacts
from working with the former secretary of state to raise de Blasio’s
international standing.

Penny Abeywardena had never met Mayor de Blasio when he reached out to her
about becoming his commissioner for international affairs. But they had a
powerful connection in common — Hillary Clinton.

Abeywardena, who at 37 is one of the mayor's youngest and most glamorous
commissioners, was hired four months ago from the Clinton Global
Initiative, where she worked closely with the former secretary of state
around Clinton’s core issue of women’s rights.

For a mayor who cultivates a global profile — he even called newly elected
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras last month to congratulate him on his
progressive values — poaching someone from Clinton’s circle was a coup.

“She has a massive Rolodex — she has contacts that even de Blasio doesn’t
have,” said a political operative who knows Abeywardena.

The commissioner, who earns $192,198 — the same salary as the cultural
affairs and consumer affairs commissioners — uses those contacts to raise
de Blasio’s international standing.

After the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last month, she immediately got
Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo on the phone and spearheaded de Blasio’s 24-hour
solidarity trip to France.

When the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge descended on New York City last
December, Abeywardena organized their events with de Blasio and his wife,
Chirlane McCray, and accompanied the duchess to Harlem.

And when the Pope visits the city later this year, Abeywardena will be the
city’s liaison.

During an interview in her corner office near the United Nations, with a
sweeping view of the East River, she says she gave up “a pretty great job”
to join city government but didn’t burn any bridges.

“Secretary Clinton could not have been a bigger supporter or happier for me
to be in this post,” she said, adding that the mayor and Clinton had “a
good laugh about it.”

It was now-departing senior mayoral adviser Peter Ragone who pitched
Abeywardena to the mayor, citing her Clinton connections and experience.
“Penny’s work at the Clinton Foundation matched the mayor’s approach to
public service in so many ways,” Ragone said.

The role was created under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who renamed the
Commission for the United Nations, Consular Corps and Protocol and
appointed his sister, Marjorie Tiven, to the job. Tiven did not accept a
salary.

But Abeywardena said she has bigger plans for the job — including filling
out her staff to create a 14-person office.

“The vision the mayor and I have for this is to create a global platform
from which to promote what’s working in New York City, but also engage this
diplomatic community with its local immigrant communities,” she said.

Abeywardena, who was born in Sri Lanka and grew up in Los Angeles, said
she’s approaching the job through a “women’s lens” — a viewpoint that’s a
perfect fit with de Blasio and McCray.

“The mayor and the first lady, they’re some of my favorite feminists,” she
said. “You think about universal pre-K, paid sick leave, even the municipal
ID — these are things that particularly support single working mothers.”

Her interest in women’s rights stems from personal experience.

“I’m a domestic violence survivor,” she said. “Mental illness and
alcoholism sort of defined my father’s situation. When we left my dad, my
mom had no bills, nothing in her name and we had to rely on the community
to help pick up from there.”

Abeywardena fell in love with New York City 15 years ago when she attended
graduate school for international studies at Columbia University.

“I like to say I was reborn in New York,” she said.

She also met her husband here. Last summer Abeywardena married colleague
Daniel Schaefer, the IT director at the Clinton Foundation. Pictures of the
Montauk beach wedding were featured on Glamour.com.

Abeywardena’s associates would not be surprised to see her play some role
in Clinton's expected 2016 campaign. But she said she plans to stay in her
job as long as the mayor does.

“I would not have taken this job if I thought I would go elsewhere,” she
said.

At the moment, she has a lot on her plate — including the looming papal
visit in September.

If she could, she said, she would love to show Pope Francis the Bronx or
Staten Island.

“I would take him to one of our pre-school locations or community centers,”
she said.

“Then we would go to a local joint and have some Sri Lankan food. I’d say,
‘Sir, it’s a little spicy, but you’re going to love it.’”

*Calendar:*

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

·  February 11 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton meets with London Mayor Johnson
(Independent
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boris-johnson-to-have-talks-with-hillary-clinton-as-london-mayors-roadshow-hits-the-us-10032526.html>
)

·  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 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>)

·  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 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of
Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>)

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

·  March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for
the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse
<http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s>
)