Correct The Record Friday January 23, 2015 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2015-01-23 10:59 Subject: Correct The Record Friday January 23, 2015 Morning Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Friday January 23, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *National Journal: “Clinton Ally Defending Her From Keystone Attacks” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-ally-defending-her-from-keystone-attacks-20150122>* [Subtitle:] “The Democratic opposition research firm Correct the Record is touting her record on energy.” *Politico: “McDonough: Hillary ‘would be a very good president’” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/denis-mcdonough-on-hillary-clinton-114496.html?hp=lc2_4>* “After working closely with Clinton during her four years as secretary of state and having a clear understanding of how the presidency works, McDonough said he’s optimistic about her ability to do the job. ‘She would be a very good president.’” *CNN: “No, Hillary Clinton didn't go to Canada with 65 Secret Service agents” <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/hillary-clinton-secret-service/index.html>* “Hillary Clinton did not have 65 Secret Service agents protecting her in Canada on Wednesday, a Secret Service source told CNN, despite a report from a Canadian radio station to the contrary.” *Washington Post blog: PostEverything: Andrew Kohut, Pew Research Center founding director: “Why putting a Bush or Clinton back in the White House could be harder than you think” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/23/why-putting-a-bush-or-clinton-back-in-the-white-house-could-be-harder-than-you-think/>* “On all three measures, Hillary Clinton is in a much better position than Jeb Bush.” *MSNBC: “A new batch of endorsements for Clinton” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-batch-endorsements-clinton>* “Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has been laying the groundwork for a Clinton bid since early 2013, will host an Asian-American and Pacific Islander fundraiser in Washington Tuesday featuring almost a dozen Asian-American Democrats in Congress.” *Boston Globe: “Former Maine senator Olympia Snowe speaks at Symphony Hall” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2015/01/23/olympia-snowe-speaking-lesley-event-says-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-least-partisan-potential-presidential-candidates/roR6NHvN8mCfNRAkoZprWN/story.html>* “Among the field of presumptive presidential candidates, Snowe said former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former Florida governor Jeb Bush are likeliest to govern in a bipartisan fashion.” *Articles:* *National Journal: “Clinton Ally Defending Her From Keystone Attacks” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-ally-defending-her-from-keystone-attacks-20150122>* By Emily Schultheis January 22, 2015 [Subtitle:] The Democratic opposition research firm Correct the Record is touting her record on energy. Hillary Clinton has long avoided addressing whether she supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline – a project that earns rare bipartisan support in the Senate but is opposed by the Obama administration. Her latest dodge came in Canada, where she gave two paid speeches Wednesday and offered no comment on the subject. But she's now getting an assist from a leading Democratic opposition research firm in defending her record on energy. Correct the Record, an arm of American Bridge which is closely allied with Clinton's campaign, will release a new report today boosting the former Secretary of State's record on other energy issues, a move that comes as the new Republican-controlled Senate debates a Keystone vote. The report <http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-smart-energy-innovation/> lists nine areas where Clinton was involved in energy-related efforts, including "fighting for clean energy" in the Senate and "prioritizing cleaner energy worldwide." Speaking at a "Global Perspectives" event in Winnipeg Wednesday, Clinton again declined to state her position on the pipeline, a move that dominated much of the coverage following the speech. "We have differences and you won't get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made it clear that I'm not going to express an opinion," she said. "It is in our process and that's where it belongs." (She's previously said it would be inappropriate for her to offer a position either way, given her tenure at State and the State Department's ongoing formal review process.) The report, titled, "Hillary Clinton: Smart Energy Innovation," doesn't mention Keystone, but focuses on Clinton's efforts on other aspects of energy policy from her tenure in the U.S. Senate and as Secretary of State. "Hillary Clinton's record on energy policy and the environment demonstrates that she acutely recognizes the challenges and realities we face," Correct the Record spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said. "She has fought to advance clean, alternative energy solutions to create jobs, boost our economy and preserve the environment for future generations." While in the Senate, Correct the Record notes, Clinton co-sponsored legislation like the Clean Power Act and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act to encourage better technologies for power plants and vehicles. She also co-sponsored the Electric Reliability Act to help modernize America's power grid. At State, Clinton helped coordinate a regional partnership with other countries in the Americas to promote clean energy development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The report also notes her role in launching the U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative, as well as her efforts to bring China to the table to cooperate on energy and environmental goals. Correct the Record has put out similar reports <http://correctrecord.org/the-record/> to bolster Clinton's record on other issues: they began with one on the economy <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/hillary-clinton-correct-the-record-2016-elections-economy-105439.html> last spring and have hit on the former Secretary of State's record on issues such as foreign policy, minimum wage raises and education. As the sole group defending Clinton ahead of her expected 2016 campaign, Correct the Record has worked to get out ahead of Clinton critics on issues as they arise. Keystone, in particular, is a politically fraught issue for Clinton, because taking a stance either way would disappoint different segments of the Democratic electorate. By saying she supports construction of the pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast, Clinton would put herself at odds with the White House, which has vowed a veto should Republicans pass legislation approving it. And among key Democratic constituencies, environmental groups oppose the pipeline, while labor leaders have said it would help create jobs. Asked about Clinton's lack of a position Keystone, Watson echoed Clinton's own rationale for not commenting on the issue. "Secretary Clinton has repeatedly stated that, as the former Secretary of State who oversaw the department charged with completing the environmental assessment of the Keystone project, it would be inappropriate to comment and risk influencing the process until this assessment is complete." *Politico: “McDonough: Hillary ‘would be a very good president’” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/denis-mcdonough-on-hillary-clinton-114496.html?hp=lc2_4>* By Jennifer Epstein January 22, 2015, 1:30 p.m. EST White House chief of staff Denis McDonough says he’s not losing sleep thinking about how the dynamic between President Barack Obama and likely presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will shake out as the 2016 campaign heats up. “I don’t worry about it,” he said Thursday at a POLITICO Playbook Lunch. Clinton showed little distance in a speech Wednesday from the positions the president took during his State of the Union address but left room to eventually highlight differences, from his right or his left. After working closely with Clinton during her four years as secretary of state and having a clear understanding of how the presidency works, McDonough said he’s optimistic about her ability to do the job. “She would be a very good president.” McDonough also described Clinton as “absolutely dogged,” “very strategic” and a “really … decent and caring person” who “embodies the best of what I’ve seen in this town.” McDonough sat down with POLITICO’s Mike Allen just as the White House told reporters that the president will not be meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a March visit that was first announced by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who had not consulted with the White House. The chief of staff wouldn’t say much about the White House’s reaction to the invitation but did say that “the president has always seen the relationship with Israel as something that’s above partisan politics.” He later added that it’s “not a question of anger so much as a question of making sure that we’re continuing to apply that historic and traditional view” about the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship. “I don’t want to jump to any conclusions” about whether the flap will derail any relationships. Drawing on military practice, McDonough’s West Wing forms “red teams” to address issues. One, led by just-elevated senior adviser Brian Deese, is a “contingencies group” that began working in the late summer to prepare for the State of the Union address and the new Congress, McDonough said. Deese was determined that the lame duck session of Congress last year would be “the start of a new and refreshing period” instead of the end of an old period. Another red team examined the State of the Union address for potential vulnerabilities and yet another is working on “exactly what we can expect from our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate” and preparing to respond to them and work with them. The White House chose to send Obama to red states —Idaho and Kansas — for his post-State of the Union tour to emphasize that he is reaching out to the whole country and not just heavily Democratic states. “By the use of his time he wants to make clear what he said at the end of his speech, which is that the country is not as deeply divided” as some in Washington would suggest, McDonough said. Many Democrats on Capitol Hill are opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, but it’s an area where some of the president’s own party and the vast majority of Republicans agree. Obama is planning to push ahead aggressively this year, McDonough said. Though the odds seem good for the administration, “we’re not banking anything — we’re gonna work this hard,” he said. McDonough volunteered cybersecurity as another area where he expects to see Congress and the White House make progress this year. *CNN: “No, Hillary Clinton didn't go to Canada with 65 Secret Service agents” <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/hillary-clinton-secret-service/index.html>* By Dan Merica and Cassie Spodak January 22, 2015, 3:57 p.m. EST Hillary Clinton did not have 65 Secret Service agents protecting her in Canada on Wednesday, a Secret Service source told CNN, despite a report from a Canadian radio station to the contrary. News Talk 980 CJME, a local radio station in Saskatoon, reported on Wednesday night that a security supervisor from the venue hosting Clinton said "approximately 65 agents" were in house to protect the former first lady. The news ballooned on Thursday morning when the conservative Weekly Standard cited the radio station in a post, the influential Drudge Report linked to the story and the anti-Clinton super PAC America Rising blasted an email to reporters about Clinton's "army of Secret Service agents, paid for at taxpayer expense." All of this, however, was incorrect, says a source at the Secret Service. "Although it's our policy not to discuss specific security measures, in this instance we can say this number is grossly inaccurate and exaggerated," the source said. A Clinton spokesman declined to comment and referred CNN to the Secret Service. Because Clinton is a former first lady and secretary of state, she regularly travels with a cadre of agents who protect her wherever she goes. When Clinton is traveling for speaking engagements and events, her personal protection is regularly increased by local agents. *Washington Post blog: PostEverything: Andrew Kohut, Pew Research Center founding director: “Why putting a Bush or Clinton back in the White House could be harder than you think” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/23/why-putting-a-bush-or-clinton-back-in-the-white-house-could-be-harder-than-you-think/>* By Andrew Kohut January 23, 2015, 6:00 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] Having a familiar last name doesn't ensure a candidate’s victory. Sometimes it hurts. The 2016 presidential campaign, now in full swing in the media and the political class, starts with a fundamental question: How can American voters, who are so dissatisfied with Washington politics and the state of the nation, name the wife of one former president, and the son and brother of two others as top candidates for the White House? National dissatisfaction is at a dismal 68 percent, and Americans’ confidence in their government has been in steady decline for years. And yet, voters seem prepared to put two familiar names — Bush and Clinton — back at the helm. In recent polls, Hillary Clinton led the Democratic field by an average 49.5 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics. And Jeb Bush led the crowded GOP field by an average 5.8 percentage points, when Mitt Romney is taken out of consideration. (When Romney’s name is included, he becomes the top choice of the Republicans by an average 8.8 percentage points, and Bush slips into second.) Though neither has officially declared candidacy, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would share a common challenge on the campaign trail: How will the legacies of their familial predecessors effect their chances of winning the election? Having a familial tie can be a boon for a presidential candidate: two first sons have risen to the White House. But having a familiar last name doesn’t ensure a candidate’s victory. Senator Robert A. Taft, eldest child of President William Howard Taft, sought the Republican nomination for president three times and failed. The value of being related to a former president when running for the Oval Office can hinge on several factors, including the past president’s own popularity, the severity of his political problems, and how closely voters link him to the legacy candidate. On all three measures, Hillary Clinton is in a much better position than Jeb Bush. For one, Bill Clinton has been a more popular ex-president than George W. Bush for some time. In a September 2012 Pew Research Center national survey, President Bill Clinton had a 68 percent favorability rating, compared to President George W. Bush’s 41 percent. There is some good news for Jeb Bush: Public opinion of his older brother has become considerably more positive since then, and the popularity gap with President Bill Clinton has narrowed. A spring 2014 Gallup Poll found 64 percent of the public rating Bill Clinton favorably, while Bush’s ratings had climbed to 53 percent. Over time, Americans tend forgive, to some degree, those presidents who were unpopular when they left office. Within their own parties, both former presidents have high favorability ratings from likely voters. However, analysis of data from the 2012 Pew survey found Clinton’s “very favorable” rating among likely Democratic voters dwarfed Bush’s comparable rating among likely GOP voters (64 percent to 39 percent). Given W.’s improved overall ratings, that gap in likely-voter opinion has probably diminished, but not disappeared. Still, popularity alone doesn’t ensure former presidents will be assets to relatives on the campaign trail. A contentious campaign could resurrect some highly charged, negative images from President George W. Bush’s and President Bill Clinton’s pasts, potentially undermining Jeb Bush’s and Hillary Clinton’s standings. In Hillary Clinton’s case, that means facing several of her husband’s personal scandals, including Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, and Monicagate. For Jeb Bush, it means answering for some of his brother’s perceived political mistakes: Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the Great Recession. All will remind voters in their respective parties of incidents they would rather forget. But at this very early stage, a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Thursday finds Hillary Clinton is suffering less than Jeb Bush from the negative legacy. A greater number of respondents said Bill Clinton’s presidency makes them more likely to support Hillary Clinton (23 percent) than said it makes them less likely to support her (14 percent). And 62 percent say the Bill Clinton presidency makes no impact on their support for Hillary at all. Jeb Bush’s family connections are not as positive. While most respondents (55 percent) said the Bush presidencies don’t affect their position on Jeb Bush, when there is an effect, it’s usually negative. In the poll, 33 percent of adults said they are less likely to support Jeb Bush given that his father and brother served as president, while just 11 percent said they’re more likely to back him. Besides the legacy factor, these candidates face another major challenge: neither is likely to be the first choice of the more ideological wings of their respective parties. Jeb Bush may well be a hard sell to tea party Republicans, as he has been seen as not conservative enough on immigration and economic issues. A mid-December ABC/Washington Post poll of Republican voters found Jeb Bush leading the field with 14 percent, just ahead of Rand Paul and Paul Ryan (the poll did not include Romney). But the lead was not statistically significant, and the pollsters noted that the former Florida governor lost ground as voters became more conservative: He had 18 percent among moderate Republican voters, but 12 percent among very conservative voters. The December CNN/ORC International poll did show Bush significantly ahead of the rest of the field at 23 percent in its nomination trial heat (which also didn’t include Romney). But it noted that many Republican respondents said they were less likely to support him when heard his stance on important issues for conservatives. When they learned that he never signed a pledge to oppose all new taxes, 38 percent said they were less likely to support him. When they found out that he described illegal immigration as an “act of love” showing concern about families, 42 percent were less supportive. At this point there is little indication that liberal Democrats are less enamored with Hillary Clinton than moderate or conservative party members. In fact, just the opposite. A February 2014 PRC poll showed 87 percent of liberals saying they would like to see her run for president, while only 69 percent of other Democrats held that view. However, this preference may be unlikely to stick. In 2008, liberals backed Clinton over Barack Obama early on, but by March, they significantly preferred Obama (53 percent) to the former first lady (36 percent). In contrast, conservative Democrats were about evenly divided in their preferences for the two leading candidates. The increasingly energized liberal wing of the Democratic Party – which has grown as Democrats have moved left on the role of government, regulation of business and various social issues – ultimately may be looking for a more progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton. Gallup reported last week a record number of self-identified liberals in its national surveys and found that 43 percent of Democrats identify as liberals. A moderate candidate like Hillary Clinton, often described as pro-business, might have difficulty satisfying an increasingly liberal party. There is a lot to suggest that both legacy front-runners will face significant challenges to hold their ground, though Jeb Bush appears to be at a disadvantage. But the economy is a wild card in determining how tough the road will be for both candidates. It will be a while before voters fully engage and seriously consider the alternative candidates to the legacy names, especially on the Democratic side. By then, the positive impacts of an improved economy may well have reached a larger slice of the electorate and diminished their appetite for change. In turn, this may well lessen the electorate’s demand for a fresh name in the White House. In the end, if the economy improves, both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush will profit. *MSNBC: “A new batch of endorsements for Clinton” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-batch-endorsements-clinton>* By Alex Seitz-Wald January 22, 2015, 9:41 p.m. EST Hillary Clinton is still likely several months away from making a presidential announcement, but she just added a slew of endorsements to her non-campaign. Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has been laying the groundwork for a Clinton bid since early 2013, will host an Asian-American and Pacific Islander fundraiser in Washington Tuesday featuring almost a dozen Asian-American Democrats in Congress. The event is part of the super PAC’s efforts to build a grassroots list of Clinton supporters, while also getting Democratic officials and officeholders to publicly commit to Clinton. Neera Tanden, Clinton’s top policy adviser during her 2008 presidential campaign and the current president of the Center for American Progress, is a featured speaker. Honorary chairs include Sen. Mazie Hirono and 10 members of the House: Reps. Mike Honda, Doris Matsui, Judy Chu, Ami Bera, Madeleine Bordallo, Tammy Duckworth, Ted Lieu, Grace Meng, Mark Takai, and Mark Takano. Other hosts of the event include Democratic policy experts, like Obama White House economic adviser Ginger Lew, former Clinton White House adviser Irene Bueno, and Third Way national security director Mieke Eoyang. Tickets go for the group’s signature $20.16 price, and range up to $500 for chairs, according to an invitation. Clinton, who spoke in Canada Wednesday night, is expected to announce her presidential ambitions in late spring. *Boston Globe: “Former Maine senator Olympia Snowe speaks at Symphony Hall” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2015/01/23/olympia-snowe-speaking-lesley-event-says-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-least-partisan-potential-presidential-candidates/roR6NHvN8mCfNRAkoZprWN/story.html>* By Mark Shanahan January 23, 2015 Former Maine senator Olympia Snowe spoke at Symphony Hall this week as part of Lesley University’s Boston Speakers Series. The moderate Republican spent 18 years in the Senate and now toils at the Washington think tank BipartisanPolicy.org. Among the field of presumptive presidential candidates, Snowe said former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former Florida governor Jeb Bush are likeliest to govern in a bipartisan fashion. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/> ) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)