Subject: Correct The Record Thursday February 19, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:03:58 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Thursday February 19, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Wall Street Journal: “Clinton Foundation Defends Acceptance of Foreign
Donations”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-foundation-defends-acceptance-of-foreign-donations-1424302856>*

​"In its statement, the foundation said: 'The Clinton Foundation has strong
donor integrity and transparency practices that go above and beyond what is
required of U.S. charities and well beyond the practices of most peer
organizations. This includes the voluntary, full disclosure of donors on
our website for anyone to see. The bottom line: these contributions are
helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which
we are grateful.'"

*Washington Post: “Clinton foundation’s global network overlaps with
family’s political base”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-raised-nearly-2-billion-for-foundation-since-2001/2015/02/18/b8425d88-a7cd-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html?tid=sm_tw>*

“Since its creation in 2001, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
Foundation has raised close to $2 billion from a vast global network that
includes corporate titans, political donors, foreign governments and other
wealthy interests, according to a Washington Post review of public records
and newly released contribution data.”

*Politico: “GOP group calls on Clinton Foundation to return foreign
donations”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/gop-group-clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-115294.html?ml=tl_1>*

“One day after a report revealed that the Clinton Foundation has abandoned
its near-prohibition of raising new money from foreign governments,
Republican opposition research firm America Rising is calling on the
organization to return funds from international sources and to promise to
stop accepting them.”

*National Journal: “When a Clinton 'Ally' Isn't an Ally At All”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/when-a-clinton-ally-isn-t-an-ally-at-all-20150218>*

[Subtitle:] “Dozens of freelancing Democrats are posing as Clinton
confidantes, and it’s mess-making for her real team.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Conservative group hits Jeb for giving
award to Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/233176-conservative-group-hits-jeb-for-giving-award-to-hillary>*

“A conservative group is launching a campaign calling former Gov. Jeb Bush
(R-Fla.) 'unelectable' because he gave presumed Democratic frontrunner
Hillary Clinton an award in 2013. In the minds of ForAmerica, a
conservative group founded by Brent Bozell, the president of the Media
Research Center, that one appearance is enough to disqualify him from a
2016 bid entirely.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Three-quarters say the
first-woman-president thing doesn’t matter. They’re wrong.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/19/three-quarters-say-the-first-woman-president-thing-doesnt-matter-theyre-wrong/>*

“There's also this: People are really bad at deducing precisely what is
important to their vote. Just because they say something isn't important
doesn't mean it isn't.”

*Bloomberg: “Fake Hillary Clinton and the New Social Media Rules of Truth”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/fake-hillary-clinton-and-the-new-social-media-rules-of-truth>*

“The world of new media is different, in barrier and also in tone. The game
is getting in on the meme. The one who wins on Twitter is the fast, the
fluid, the so-damn-biting that the mic gets dropped.”

*Articles:*

*Wall Street Journal: “Clinton Foundation Defends Acceptance of Foreign
Donations”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-foundation-defends-acceptance-of-foreign-donations-1424302856>*

By Peter Nicholas and Rebecca Ballhaus

February 18, 2015, 6:40 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Charity has received funds from governments of U.A.E., Saudi
Arabia, Oman and Canada, among others

The Clinton Foundation on Wednesday defended its practice of accepting
donations from overseas governments, amid concerns from some ethics experts
that such contributions are inappropriate at a time when Hillary Clinton is
preparing to run for president.

A Wall Street Journal review of donations to the Clinton Foundation in 2014
showed the charity received money from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi
Arabia and Oman, among others. The donors included Canada’s foreign affairs
department, which is promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

The foundation had agreed to stop raising money from foreign governments in
2009, after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. That step was in
deference to Obama administration concerns about the propriety of taking
money from other nations while Mrs. Clinton served as America’s top
diplomat.

Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in early 2013, and the foundation
later dropped the ban.

Mrs. Clinton is an important figure in the foundation, serving as a marquee
fundraiser for what is now officially called the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea
Clinton Foundation. Some ethics experts questioned whether it is
appropriate for the foundation to accept funds from foreign governments at
a time when Mrs. Clinton is preparing for an all-but-certain presidential
bid.

In its statement, the foundation said: “The Clinton Foundation has strong
donor integrity and transparency practices that go above and beyond what is
required of U.S. charities and well beyond the practices of most peer
organizations. This includes the voluntary, full disclosure of donors on
our website for anyone to see.”

“The bottom line: these contributions are helping improve the lives of
millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.”

In its account of the donations from foreign governments, the Journal
quoted several independent analysts who said the foundation should restore
its ban on such contributions, out of concerns that foreign governments
would attempt to curry favor with Mrs. Clinton.

Republicans on Wednesday chided Mrs. Clinton over the contributions.

“The alarming rate at which these contributions are now coming in presents
a massive conflict-of-interest problem for her,’’ said Michael Short, a
spokesman for the Republican National Committee. ”When that 3 a.m. phone
call comes, do voters really want to have a president on the line who took
truckloads of cash from other countries? Absolutely not."

A spokeswoman for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush , who is preparing a
campaign for the White House, declined to comment on whether the Clinton
Foundation should stop accepting contributions from foreign governments.
But she noted that Mr. Bush, “as part of seriously exploring a potential
run for president,” had stepped down as chairman of his foundation, and
that his foundation doesn’t take donations from foreign governments or
entities.

America Rising, a Republican opposition research group, on Wednesday called
for the Clinton Foundation to restore its ban on foreign contributions and
return the donations it has received from foreign countries and entities,
including nonprofits where foreign government donations constitute the
majority of their funds. They also requested that Mr. Clinton return the
speaking fees he has earned from foreign governments and stop accepting
them.

“The potential conflict of interest for someone in Clinton’s position
requires they return the money, and the ethical lapse to accept the money
in the first place calls into question Hillary Clinton’s judgment,” the
group said in a statement

The United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and
$5 million, 2014 according to disclosures on an online Clinton Foundation
database. The German government—another first-time donor—contributed
between $100,000 and $250,000.

Saudi Arabia, a previous donor, has given between $10 million and $25
million since the foundation’s creation. An unspecified portion of the
money came in 2014.

Other donors to the foundation last year included Jonathan Lavine, an
investment adviser in Boston and previous donor to Mrs. Clinton’s
campaigns, gave between $500,000 and $1 million together with his wife
through a foundation they created.

Several prominent Silicon Valley figures gave to the foundation for the
first time last year. Ann Doerr, the wife of venture capitalist John Doerr
, gave between $50,000 and $100,000. A foundation started by Sean Parker ,
the co-founder of Napster, gave between $500,000 and $1 million.

Newsmax, a conservative news organization, last year pledged $1 million to
the Clinton Foundation over a five-year period, according to a spokesman
for Chris Ruddy, the organization’s CEO. Mr. Ruddy has been friends with
the Clintons since 2007. Through a spokesman, he said the donation wasn't
tantamount to an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton’s potential campaign, though
he thinks she would “make a great presidential candidate.”

*Washington Post: “Clinton foundation’s global network overlaps with
family’s political base”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-raised-nearly-2-billion-for-foundation-since-2001/2015/02/18/b8425d88-a7cd-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html?tid=sm_tw>*

By Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger, and Steven Rich

February 18, 2015, 9:30 p.m. EST

Since its creation in 2001, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
Foundation has raised close to $2 billion from a vast global network that
includes corporate titans, political donors, foreign governments and other
wealthy interests, according to a Washington Post review of public records
and newly released contribution data.

The total, representing cash and pledges reported in tax filings, includes
$262 million that was raised in 2013 — the year Hillary Rodham Clinton
stepped down as secretary of state and began to devote her energies to the
foundation and to a likely second run for president.

The financial success of the foundation, which funds charitable work around
the world, underscores the highly unusual nature of another Clinton
candidacy. The organization has given contributors entree, outside the
traditional political arena, to a possible president. Foreign donors and
countries that are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton
administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S. political campaigns
— have affirmed their support for the family’s work through the charitable
giving.

The Post review of foundation data, updated this month on the group’s Web
site to reflect giving through 2014, found substantial overlap between the
Clinton political machinery and the foundation.

Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group
promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers
from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation,
either on their own or through foundations or companies they run.

The Clintons have relied heavily on their close ties to Wall Street, with
donations from the financial services sector representing the largest share
of corporate donors.

And many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreigners who are legally
barred from giving to U.S. political candidates. A third of foundation
donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other
entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more
than half of those who have given more than $5 million.

The prevalence of financial institutions, both foreign and domestic, as
major donors is likely to stir more unease in the Democratic Party’s
liberal base, which is pushing Hillary Clinton to adopt a more populist and
less Wall Street-focused economic agenda. The role of interests located in
countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Argentina may spur questions
about the independence of a potential commander in chief who has solicited
money from foreign donors with a stake in the actions of the U.S.
government.

*‘A philanthropy, period’*

Foundation officials said the organization’s fundraising success reflects
its track record of accomplishment. They said many other foundations have a
similar international donor base.

“The Clinton Foundation is a philanthropy, period,” said Craig Minassian,
the group’s chief communications officer. “We take pride in our programs,
our efficiency, and our transparency. As with other global charities, the
Clinton Foundation receives the support of individuals, organizations and
governments from all over the world because our programs are improving the
lives of millions.”

Minassian said it was a “false choice to suggest that people who may be
interested in supporting political causes wouldn’t also support
philanthropic work.”

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, declined to comment.

The foundation, which Bill Clinton created soon after leaving the White
House in 2001, has become one of the world’s fastest-growing philanthropies.

It consists of multiple charitable initiatives that deal with climate
change, HIV drug access and economic development in poor areas. One
program, led by Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, seeks to improve the lives of
women and girls.

The foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn
bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often
participating in its programs. Major donations have come from figures such
as Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of the conservative Web site
Newsmax.com and a onetime critic of Bill Clinton.

Foundation tax records show that it reported raising $1.69 billion in cash
and pledges between 2001 and 2013, the last year for which documents are
available. As of the end of 2014, donations reached nearly $2 billion,
foundation officials confirmed.

The scope of the foundation’s finances show the unparalleled fundraising
power of one of the world’s most important political brands.

“To be raising $250 million a year, certainly puts them in the top ranks of
U.S. nonprofits in terms of fundraising,” said Steven Lawrence, director of
research for the Foundation Center, which studies philanthropy.

Lawrence said the Clintons’ ability to draw support from overseas — a
coveted goal for many U.S. charities and university endowments — was
especially unusual.

“It’s all about building networks and connections,” Lawrence said, adding
that donors are likely attracted both personally to the Clintons and to the
highly regarded philanthropic work of their foundation.

The donor list shows that the foundation has relied most heavily on seven
donors that have each given more than $25 million, including a foundation
established by a Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra; the national
lottery of Holland; and Chicago-based Democratic donor Fred Eychaner.

Other major donors giving at lower levels run the gamut of industries and
interests, such as the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, beverage
giant Coca-Cola, and the governments of Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab
Emirates.

Foundation officials say some of their public support comes from
competitive grants that are also available to other charities.

*Concerns in late 2008*

The foundation’s fundraising sparked concerns in late 2008 when
President-elect Barack Obama was preparing to nominate Hillary Clinton to
be secretary of state. Some Republicans, raising the prospect of conflicts
of interest, criticized the fact that the foundation’s donors were kept
secret.

The Clintons struck a deal with the Obama administration to begin posting
lists of its contributors online and to accept some restrictions on support
from foreign governments.

As part of the deal, the Clinton Global Initiative, which brings together
world leaders, industries and charities to discuss global issues, was split
from the foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State
Department. In 2013, after she stepped down as secretary of state, the
foundation and the global initiative were reintegrated. The newly published
donor list is the first to provide a public accounting of the cumulative
giving to both groups.

In posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements,
and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies.

But that transparency has limits. The foundation identifies its donors
within broad ranges — $1 million to $5 million and greater than $25
million, for instance. And the foundation tallies the giving of each donor
only cumulatively, making it difficult to track trends in giving over time.

As a result, it is not possible to determine how much particular donors
contributed in the months since Hillary Clinton joined the foundation in
2013.

Still, the organization has stepped up its solicitation efforts in
anticipation of soon losing one of its chief fundraisers to the campaign
trail — building a $250 million endowment designed to provide some
long-term stability.

The recent efforts have at times looked like a political campaign. A
contest offered foundation donors the chance to win a free trip to New York
to attend a Clinton gala and have a photo taken with the former first
couple.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton hosted a “Millennium Network” event in 2013
aimed at cultivating a younger generation of philanthropists. According to
an invitation, there were six tiers of donations, ranging from $150 for
individuals to $15,000 for a couple seeking a photograph with Hillary
Clinton.

The Post review found that the foundation provided another way for the
Clintons’ longtime political donors to support the family’s endeavors
between election campaigns. The analysis relied on a list of bundlers
compiled by the advocacy group Public Citizen using campaign disclosures
and news reports. Each donor had generally raised at least $100,000 for her
2008 campaign.

Susie Tompkins Buell, for instance, a close Clinton friend and 2008
fundraiser who has given to Ready for Hillary, has donated as much as $10
million to the foundation from her charitable fund.

Haim Saban, the billionaire creator of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and
one of the Clintons’ most-prolific political givers, has donated as much as
$25 million to the foundation.

Buell and Saban did not respond to requests for comment.

The overlap between the Clintons’ political network and their charitable
work was apparent Friday, when Dennis Cheng stepped down as the
foundation’s chief development officer ahead of his expected role as a key
fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

*U.S.-regulated donors*

Some major foundation donors are corporations that are regulated by the
U.S. government.

Tenet, a health-care giant that has been investigated in the past for
overbilling Medicare, has given $1.75 million to the Clinton Foundation
since 2012 to fund local health programs, such as one promoting more HIV
testing in the Palm Springs, Calif., area, where the company has a major
hospital.

“We really believe in their health-care model — the community-based model,”
said Daniel Waldmann, Tenet’s senior vice president for public affairs.

The newly updated foundation donor list shows that, despite the
restrictions on foreign-government support imposed during Hillary Clinton’s
tenure as secretary of state, the foundation continued to rely heavily on
non-U.S. sources. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the
foundation has now lifted the foreign-government restrictions.

The data shows that some major donors represent international interests
that have faced scrutiny from the U.S. government.

All three Clintons, for instance, have attended meetings and private events
with Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who has faced formal
complaints in the United States for unfair trade practices. Spokesmen for
the Clintons and Pinchuk waved away any suggestion of a conflict between
the donor’s regulatory concerns and the charitable contributions to the
foundation.

“No assistance with any business issues has now or ever been sought from
the Clinton Foundation or its principals,” said Thomas Weihe, a spokesman
for the Kiev-based Pinchuk Foundation.

He said Pinchuk supported the Clinton effort because of the foundation’s
record and the “unique capacity of its principals to promote the
modernization of Ukraine.”

*Politico: “GOP group calls on Clinton Foundation to return foreign
donations”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/gop-group-clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-115294.html?ml=tl_1>*

By Gabriel Debenedetti

February 18, 2015, 5:58 p.m. EST

One day after a report revealed that the Clinton Foundation has abandoned
its near-prohibition of raising new money from foreign governments,
Republican opposition research firm America Rising is calling on the
organization to return funds from international sources and to promise to
stop accepting them.

The group is warning against the prospect of countries that in some cases
have given $1 million or more to the foundation having a “special”
relationship with a Clinton administration. The Wall Street Journal on
Tuesday reported that nations including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi
Arabia and Canada have recently donated to the foundation.

“The potential conflict of interest for someone in Clinton’s position
requires they return the money, and the ethical lapse to accept the money
in the first place calls into question Hillary Clinton’s judgment,” the
group will say on Wednesday in its release announcing these requests.

Neither Hillary Clinton’s spokesman nor a Clinton Foundation spokesman
responded immediately to requests for comment.

While Clinton lies low ahead of her campaign launch, Republicans have been
criticizing her work as a public official and a private citizen. The
Journal report reflected one Republican line of criticism — that Clinton’s
foundation ties to foreign regimes could cause her political difficulties —
and a similar fear among some of her allies and defenders.

The organization — which was started by former President Bill Clinton as he
left the White House and was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
Foundation in 2013 — has caused Hillary Clinton political headaches before.
It agreed to stop actively seeking out new money from foreign governments,
and to have increases in existing donations vetted, when she stepped into
the secretary of state role in 2009. And it has again been the focus of
Republican scrutiny since she left the State Department in 2013.

Many of Clinton’s public appearances in that year and 2014 were under the
foundation’s umbrella, as the former senator and first lady has been
involved with its philanthropic initiatives while preparing for her likely
presidential bid.

America Rising will demand that the organization “return all donations from
foreign governments, including regional or local government entities since
2013 and pledge never to solicit or accept them.” It is also asking the
foundation to return funds received from nonprofit organizations that are
themselves mostly funded by foreign governments or officials, and to return
money from foreign officers. It is asking Bill Clinton to give back his own
speaking fees from international governments as well.

The Journal article specifically pointed to the United Arab Emirates, which
it said gave the foundation between $1 million and $5 million last year, as
a recent first-time donor. The paper also reported that the Clinton
Foundation received money from Oman, Australia, Germany, Norway, Italy and
the Netherlands.

*National Journal: “When a Clinton 'Ally' Isn't an Ally At All”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/when-a-clinton-ally-isn-t-an-ally-at-all-20150218>*

By Emily Schultheis

February 18, 2015

[Subtitle:] Dozens of freelancing Democrats are posing as Clinton
confidantes, and it’s mess-making for her real team.

There are Clinton "insiders" and Clinton "allies." Clinton "loyalists" and
Clinton "confidantes." People "familiar with Clinton's thinking" or "in
Clinton's orbit."

No doubt, Washington is filled with Democrats who have worked for, advised,
donated money to, or rubbed elbows with Hillary or Bill Clinton over the
duo's three decades in politics. But as the former secretary of State
prepares a 2016 campaign, these "allies" are posing a problem for Clinton's
real team.

Ever eager to voice opinions on everything from the timeline of Clinton's
announcement to her 2016 message to how her "hipster black-rimmed glasses"
fit with the optics of a Brooklyn-based operation, self-labeled advisors
are going rogue. And by freelancing, they're taking the Clinton story out
of Clinton's hands, even as she tries to build a team that's more
leak-proof and less willing to air dirty laundry than in 2008.

"There are three parties to this equation: we're one, the source is two,
and the media is three. And arguably we have the least amount of influence
on any of this," said longtime Clinton aide Philippe Reines. He conceded,
though, that there's no real way for her team to control it: "We just have
to sit back. We just have to grin and bear it."

The issue is singularly frustrating for people who work and have worked in
Clinton's press operation and dealt with the issue first-hand—enough so
that several of whom, like Reines, were willing to give rare on-the-record
interviews for this story.

"This is a constant problem," said Howard Wolfson, who served as Clinton's
communications director in 2008. "There is an enormous number of people who
have had, or claim to have had, an association with the Clintons over the
years—and many of them claim to have some degree of knowledge of her plans
or activities that they don't in fact have."

Unlike on the Republican side, where a crowded field makes candidates and
their staffs happy to dish to reporters about big hires, early-state plans,
and behind-the-scenes machinations, movements to and within Clinton's
growing operation are closely held. Indeed, Republicans have used a running
tally of the "no comment" responses from the Clinton camp to paint the
former senator and first lady as out-of-touch—"OFF THE RECORD: no comment,"
read the headline on one recent Clinton-related release from the Republican
National Committee.

So with Clinton's staff keeping public comments to a minimum, the
quasi-"insiders" largely have the floor to themselves.

Certainly, former staffers eagerly offering up their own takes or
speculation isn't unique to Clinton, but for her it's magnified by the
amount of time she and her husband have spent in the public eye. There are
decades' worth of former staffers to contend with: there are the Arkansas
people, the Clinton White House advisers, New York Senate staffers, 2008
campaign aides, Clinton Foundation associates, and State Department aides,
among others.

Asked how the campaign could get a handle on all the anonymous outside
chatter, Reines placed much of the blame back on the media for being
willing to grant anonymity to sources who don't know what they're talking
about. Unless the unnamed "advisers" stop talking to reporters, or
reporters stop quoting them, Reines added, there's no way to get the issue
under control.

"What gets lost is there are no consequences for [the source or the media]
when they're wrong—there just aren't," he said. "If you were to go back and
look at the last three, four, five, six months of coverage about Secretary
Clinton, you're going to see certain reporters who cover her closely whose
accuracy rate is less than 50/50."

Any reporter covering the Clinton beat knows it's tough to navigate the
sphere known as Clintonworld. A source who offers up good information for
one story might be totally wrong on another, and most Democrats are
understandably squeamish about talking on the record about anything
Clinton-related because nearly all of them are hoping for jobs with her.
(More than a dozen people contacted for this piece said they were happy to
discuss it—but only on background.)

The thing is, a Clinton "ally" could be anyone: a top donor or former
staffer in the know, sure, but also a Democratic strategist on the outside
who is just sharing an opinion, wants to feel important, or is hoping to
settle a score. What's more, it's far harder for the campaign to chastise
someone for saying things they shouldn't—or stop telling that person
privileged information—if they're quoted anonymously and you don't know for
sure who said what.

"Any time someone actually says their name and publishes a quote, it's easy
for the campaign to call them up and say, 'Please don't do that anymore,'"
said Michael Trujillo, who served as a senior staffer for Clinton's 2008
campaign in California, Texas and North Carolina. But with anonymous
quotes, you don't know where they're coming from.

(Reines warned it's not difficult to figure out: "It's not like you read
something and say, 'Oh my gosh, that could have been 97 people.' You tend
to know. Not 100 percent of the time, but ... I think sources would
probably shrivel up if they knew that when these things happen, there's
usually a four-minute conversation about, 'Oh, that was probably X ... I
think people would be mortified. I don't think they realize how much that
happens.")

Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton's White House press secretary in the 1990s, also
pegged the problem not to the campaign but to reporters who
"hyperventilate" about 2016. "I love Mrs. Clinton and hope she decides what
is best for her. But anyone that would quote me 'on background' would be
misleading their audience because I have no real idea what they are
thinking," he wrote via email. "I believe 75% (conservatively) of what I
read about the political strategy inside the Clinton camp is from people
who want to be in the 'inside circle' but probably aren't."

The dynamic in 2008 is just a preview of what the chattering "allies" will
be like this time around. Trujillo said more than once he and his team were
stunned at news reports about Clinton's plans in each of those states—which
often had sources who were in direct contradiction with what was actually
happening inside the campaign.

"To read that in the paper and know it was the complete opposite ... it's
never helpful, it's never asked for," said Trujillo, now a Los
Angeles-based senior adviser for Ready for Hillary. "You're not being
helpful by pontificating on what she is or isn't going to do."

So what's the eventual Clinton campaign to do? No one reached for this
story had a good answer. Some suggested the outside "allies" would be given
less status once it's clear who's actually involved in the campaign and who
isn't. Others said John Podesta, the expected campaign chairman, might be
able to instill order among the older generations of Clinton loyalists,
many of whom he's worked with in the past.

Ben LaBolt, the press secretary for the Obama 2012 campaign, said the
eventual Clinton campaign needs to make it very clear to reporters who's
actually on the campaign and in the know—and who isn't.

"Campaigns should bend over backwards to limit the number of people that
speak officially for the campaign and to make sure the media understands
exactly who serves on that team," he wrote in an email. "Otherwise, you're
forced to apologize for, correct or condemn statements by people who don't
actually have anything to do with the campaign."

But sometimes, Wolfson said, the 2008 staff took a step back and just
laughed about who some anonymous sources could have been. "In the '08
campaign, we used to laugh and say, 'Okay, that was the shoe-shine guy.'
'That was the guy who ran the sandwich shop down the street,'" he said.
"There was, in my experience, a very elastic and loose definition of who
constitutes a 'Clinton loyalist,' 'Clinton insider,' 'Clinton confidante.'"

The reporting and speculation about her intentions and campaign plans,
Reines said, often baffle even Clinton herself: "When you're talking to the
person whose life is being written about and they're like, 'Where do they
get this stuff?' It's really sobering."

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Conservative group hits Jeb for giving
award to Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/233176-conservative-group-hits-jeb-for-giving-award-to-hillary>*

By Ben Kamisar

February 19, 2015, 5:00 a.m. EST

A conservative group is launching a campaign calling former Gov. Jeb Bush
(R-Fla.) “unelectable” because he gave presumed Democratic frontrunner
Hillary Clinton an award in 2013.

In the minds of ForAmerica, a conservative group founded by Brent Bozell,
the president of the Media Research Center, that one appearance is enough
to disqualify him from a 2016 bid entirely.

“Anytime Jeb calls Hillary 'Obama 2.0,' any criticism he makes of her awful
record as Secretary of State, any time he shows how much of an extremist
she is on the issues, will be completely dismissed when she reminds
everyone that he gave her an award for public service,” Bozell said in a
statement.

“Jeb has absolutely no credibility to criticize her because he has already
anointed her as a great public servant; and he inexplicably did so almost a
year to the day of the Benghazi massacre," he continued. "He will lose, and
the public will have to suffer at least another four years of Obama’s
policies – and anything worse she has in store for America.”

As chairman of the National Constitution Center, Bush gave Clinton a
lifetime achievement award for public service and her work on women’s
rights.

A video released by ForAmerica shows footage of Bush thanking Clinton and
her husband, President Bill Clinton.

"We are united by love of country and public service,” Bush says. The video
then shows text calling Hillary Clinton “responsible for the security of
the American embassy in Benghazi” and noting that the 2012 attack on the
embassy that left four Americans dead “occurred on her watch.”

The event occurred one night before the first anniversary of the Benghazi
attacks.

Bush has finished near the top of most national polls of Republican voters,
but some of the party’s more conservative figures argue that he is too
moderate for their liking and will struggle to win the base and nomination.

Most potential candidates, including former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ala.), Gov.
Scott Walker (Wis.), and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) are expected to run well to
the right of Bush, who has been hit by conservative Republicans over his
support for Common Core education standards and immigration reform.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Three-quarters say the
first-woman-president thing doesn’t matter. They’re wrong.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/19/three-quarters-say-the-first-woman-president-thing-doesnt-matter-theyre-wrong/>*

By Aaron Blake

February 19, 2015, 6:30 a.m. EST

Breaking: Hillary Clinton, if she were to run for and win the presidency,
would be the first female U.S. president.

And, if you believe the polls, almost nobody who has any control over that
really gives a rip.

New polling from Quinnipiac University on Wednesday showed about
three-quarters of people in the swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia
said that distinction made no difference to their 2016 vote. And the
majority who said it did were Democrats. Basically no Republicans said it
made them more likely to back Clinton, and only about one in 10
independents agreed -- the same percentage who said it makes them less
likely to back her. In other words, these are probably just folks who claim
to be independent but vote reliably for either party.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll a few weeks back showed basically the same
thing, with just slightly more independents saying the
first-woman-president thing was something that made them more pro-Clinton.

But there's also this: People are really bad at deducing precisely what is
important to their vote. Just because they say something isn't important
doesn't mean it isn't. The same goes for endorsements. Nobody likes to
think their vote is based on such easy shorthand, but sometimes it is.

Case in point: the first-black-president thing. Turns out, back in 2008,
almost nobody said it was a big deal -- even less than the
first-woman-president thing today.

A Gallup poll conducted in June 2008 found 78 percent of African Americans
and 88 percent of whites said Obama's race had nothing to do with their
vote. (The question wasn't framed as "first black president," for what it's
worth, but it stands to reason that's how almost everyone interpreted it.)

By the end of the campaign, just 9 percent were saying Obama's race made
them more likely to vote for him, and 6 percent less likely -- basically a
wash. And given much of the "more likely" crowd were African Americans (who
vote almost universally Democratic anyway), it's hard to say whether it had
any measurable effect on swing voters.

But then you get to turnout. That's where this mattered. Obama's status as
the potential first black president pushed black turnout to unprecedented
levels and helped him win the presidency (and reelection in 2012).

Here's how turnout looked in recent elections -- noting the upticks in 2008
and 2012.

[CHART]

Which is where the first-woman-president thing comes into play for Clinton.
No, it might not sway as many swing voters as women's groups might like,
and there is probably a countervailing effect of people still hesitant
about installing a woman in the presidency.

Where it could really help Clinton is if it spurs higher turnout among
women -- who tilt Democratic -- and particularly among lower-turnout
unmarried and college-educated women -- who tilt much more Democratic.

Here is turnout for unmarried women.

[CHART]

These extra votes won't uniformly go to Clinton as much as the black vote
did for Obama -- and we might not ever get a truly accurate
first-woman-president polling response -- but they would go a long way
toward helping her re-create the so-called "Obama Coalition."

And if 2008 is any indication, the first-fill-in-the-blank-president thing
doesn't exactly hurt among swing voters either -- whether they know it or
not.

*Bloomberg: “Fake Hillary Clinton and the New Social Media Rules of Truth”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/fake-hillary-clinton-and-the-new-social-media-rules-of-truth>*

By Emily Greenhouse

February 18, 2015, 9:09 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Fast and loose, in fact and on line.

At 11:45 a.m. on Valentine’s Day, Saturday, Senator Rand Paul tweeted,
"Hillary Clinton's new Valentine's Day Pinterest board is worth a look.
Check it out and please RT!"

As Paul advertised, the link took people to a Pinterest page purporting to
belong to Hillary Clinton. Instead, it had been put together by Paul's
camp. There was a "Power Couple" board, with shots of the Clintonian Mr. &
Mrs., an "Inspirational Quotes" slot, and—because Paul knows what women
like—a "White House remodel" board, with pictures of a heart-shaped pool
and a stylish office with a desk resembling a doily. Then there was the
holiday card, all in pink: Clinton's face, open-mouthed, with the words
"I've Benghazing at you!" in a red heart beside her.

In presidential politics, it’s a fairly rare genuflection toward policing
the truth. In 2004, a number of Vietnam War veterans turned against one of
their kind. They called themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and
they ran ads, as a tax-exempt 527 group, saying that John Kerry, then a
candidate for president, was “no war hero,” that he “lied to get his Bronze
Star.” One spot opened with the men stating, solemnly, that they had served
with Kerry. But the the New York Times reported, “None of the men served
with Mr. Kerry on his Swift boat.”

Swiftboating fast became a verb: a shorthand synonym whose meaning was
extended to cover unjust or untrue political attacks, however petty or
trivial. In the next presidential election cycle, Barack Obama accused his
opponent, John McCain, of engaging in “swift boat politics,” after the
McCain campaign accused Obama of sexism for his use of the phrase "lipstick
on a pig," claiming the comment referred to vice presidential nominee Sarah
Palin. The charges and counter-charges were ugly, but allowed, and it's
doubtful that we’d recognize our national politics without mudslinging,
misattribution, and misrepresentation. Hyperbole has become the norm—how
else could the public be trusted to grasp basic political points? In
television and newspaper ads, facts may seem slack, but the spirit is
accurate. To someone, at least.

The world of new media is different, in barrier and also in tone. The game
is getting in on the meme. The one who wins on Twitter is the fast, the
fluid, the so-damn-biting that the mic gets dropped. Much has been made
already of Rand Paul’s use of social media; Politico called him “the first
true Twitter candidate.” In just the last weeks of January, Paul published
a “secret tape” of a fake phone call between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush,
and posted tweets (initially misspelled) showing friendship bracelets
exchanged between Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.

His Valentine’s-themed fake Pinterest page seemed a natural extension of
that, the du jour-ness, the jumping on the trend. Swiftboating, maybe, but
swiftboating is savvy branding. But Paul hit a dam in the water Sunday when
Pinterest deleted Paul’s ‘parody’ account.

The fake Hillary Clinton account, a spokesperson for Pinterest said,
violates the company’s acceptable use policy, which makes it impermissible
to "impersonate or misrepresent your affiliation with any person or
entity.”  A site like https://www.pinterest.com/fakebarackobama/ is labeled
as a parody, and https://www.pinterest.com/randpaulreview “makes clear that
it is administered by someone else.” But not this.

The company representative noted that Pinterest has “disabled other
accounts that appear to impersonate individuals and our policies on this
are nearly identical to other services.” Twitter and Facebook have similar
positions on parody accounts. A spokesperson for Twitter said that the
social network has disabled accounts claiming to be (or to be affiliated
with) politicians, that weren’t real.

Which means that so long as Rand Paul is tweeting as Rand Paul, he can keep
posting made-up letters and images of friendship bracelets, leaving it to
fate or followers to determine whether he’s joking. This is an interesting
modern condundrum, a hairsplitting of truth—which, we know, is already in
short supply in politics. The rule seems to be: falsehood is acceptable, as
long as it is uttered by a verifiable human. Possibly, social media
networks should streamline their swiftboat policy.

*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 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>
)