Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday November 19, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:43:32 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday November 19, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Washington Post: “The candidate who matters most to GOP presidential
hopefuls: Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-candidate-who-matters-most-to-gop-presidential-hopefuls-hillary-clinton/2014/11/19/b3edda4e-6f3a-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html>*

“Clinton leaves it to surrogates to mount any defense, as the pro-Clinton
message outfit Correct the Record has done in the case of Clinton’s age and
other issues. ‘Yes, there have been attacks on her after the midterms, but
they have been hitting her hard for over a year,’ said Correct the Record
communications director Adrienne Elrod. ‘They are trying as hard as
possible to make sure she’s not the nominee, and the reason they are doing
that is that they don’t want to run against her.’”

*The Hill: “Clinton enjoys unofficial candidacy”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/224638-clinton-enjoys-unofficial-candidacy>*

“Clinton knows that, if she runs for the White House, she’ll be asked about
every move the president makes. She and her team will have to be ready to
embrace Obama where it suits them, and to cast him aside when that would
better serve her candidacy.”

*Huffington Post opinion: Melanne Verveer: “Driving Growth through Women's
Economic Participation”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanne-verveer/driving-growth-through-wo_b_6179734.html>*

“As Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton put women's economic
participation on the foreign policy agenda.”

*Politico: “Ready for Hillary ready to end”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/ready-for-hillary-ready-to-end-113018.html>*

“Exactly when it will come to an end is unclear – it will likely exist for
a period of time if Clinton declares, going through a formal process of
closing accounts and wrapping up loose ends.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Fundraisers Rev Up for
Possible Hillary Clinton Run”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/19/fundraisers-rev-up-for-possible-hillary-clinton-run/>*

“A group of New Jersey-based Democratic fundraisers and political
operatives has scheduled a dinner in Newark on Monday to gather commitments
for a donation to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as soon as she announces she’s
running, according to a person familiar with the event.”

*The Atlantic: “Hillary’s Silence on Iran and Immigration Reform”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/hillarys-silence-on-iran-and-immigration-reform/382895/>*

[Subtitle:] “The cautious Clinton of 2008 is back—and that shows why it's
so essential she face a Democratic challenger in 2016.”

*Politico: “Democrats to Obama: You broke the party, now fix it”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-democrats-113016.html>*

“As much Hillary Clinton anticipation as there is, two weeks later,
Democrats are still reeling and anxious.”

*Politico: “Beyond Senate defeat, ill omens for Keystone”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/beyond-senate-defeat-ill-omens-for-keystone-113015.html>*

“In addition, Democrats would gain some political advantage from Obama
settling the issue [Keystone] sooner rather than later, if only to keep it
from burdening a 2016 White House run by Hillary Clinton.”

*Los Angeles Times column: Doyle McManus: “A Bernie Sanders candidacy could
help Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-column-sanders-democrats-2016-20141119-11-column.html>*

“When pressed, however, he [Sen. Sanders] acknowledges that he thinks even
a losing campaign would be a good thing because of its potential to bring
more attention to his ideas, widen the national debate and put pressure on
Hillary Rodham Clinton or any other eventual Democratic nominee.”

*Associated Press: “2016 contest overshadows GOP governors meeting”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e4d6baa3a47047cdb3c0a2bc0b8b6df6/2016-contest-overshadows-gop-governors-meeting>*

“While Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the overwhelming Democratic
front-runner should she seek the presidency, the prospective Republican
field is crowded and without a clear leader.”

*Articles:*

*Washington Post: “The candidate who matters most to GOP presidential
hopefuls: Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-candidate-who-matters-most-to-gop-presidential-hopefuls-hillary-clinton/2014/11/19/b3edda4e-6f3a-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html>*

By Anne Gearan and Philip Rucker

November 19, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says she’s old. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says
she’s a loser. Operatives for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie whisper that
he’s not afraid of her.

For Republicans eyeing a run for president in a crowded 2016 field, one
measure matters above all others: How they stack up against Hillary Rodham
Clinton.

“It would almost be political malpractice not to” go after Clinton, said
former Mississippi governor Ronnie Musgrove (D), who is close to Clinton
and her husband.

As the prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is
the Goliath to all the would-be Davids. Attacking her is an easy way to
impress donors, get noticed by potential supporters and the news media, and
stand out among a growing throng of Republicans who have middling fame
compared with hers.

The Republican National Committee and America Rising, a GOP super PAC, have
each launched opposition-research efforts aimed at identifying lines of
attack on Clinton. The RNC has already deployed a team of 10 operatives to
Arkansas — where former president Bill Clinton was governor — and elsewhere
to dig up fresh dirt on Hillary Clinton.

“She’s the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” said Brian Jones, a
communications adviser to John McCain’s 2008 campaign and Mitt Romney’s
2012 campaign.

But there are risks for Republicans. The attacks, already in full swing two
years ahead of the election, could become repetitive or tiresome. Or
sexist: Swipes at Clinton’s age or health could backfire on a GOP field
that is, at this point, all male.

Party leaders, however, say they relish a fight with the former secretary
of state, who remains a polarizing national figure and has seen her
approval ratings fall since leaving the State Department. RNC Chairman
Reince Priebus said the party is treating Clinton as the presumptive
Democratic nominee, no different from if she were an incumbent.

“There’s no person in America I’d rather be running against than Hillary
Clinton,” Priebus said. “When it comes to raising money, unifying our party
and recruiting a lot of volunteers, Hillary Clinton is my best asset.”

For now, Clinton is remaining above the fray, and her aides did not respond
to requests for comment on the GOP attacks. Advisers close to her say that
if she runs, there will be plenty of time to engage Republicans on her
terms. Clinton leaves it to surrogates to mount any defense, as the
pro-Clinton message outfit Correct the Record has done in the case of
Clinton’s age and other issues.

“Yes, there have been attacks on her after the midterms, but they have been
hitting her hard for over a year,” said Correct the Record communications
director Adrienne Elrod. “They are trying as hard as possible to make sure
she’s not the nominee, and the reason they are doing that is that they
don’t want to run against her.”

But from the point of view of many Republicans, the attacks serve a simple
purpose: to damage the presumptive Democratic nominee.

In 2008, Republicans benefitted from the bitter primary fight between
Clinton and Barack Obama, which aired a lot of dirty laundry. Republicans
now need to keep up the pressure on Clinton during the Democratic primary
season if Clinton faces no serious opposition, Jones said.

“The party needs to keep applying pressure to her and keeping her and her
team off balance, particularly if she’s running against Larry, Curly and
Moe” on the Democratic side, Jones said.

Clinton has said she is still considering whether to run and will probably
decide after Jan. 1. She is quietly meeting with potential donors and
possible campaign strategists, and is widely expected to make an official
announcement by mid-February. She has given no sign that Republican attacks
figure into that calculus.

“The other side has no choice but to be constantly negative, because they
know that Hillary has widespread grass-roots support and is the strongest,
most qualified candidate if she decides to run,” said Seth Bringman,
spokesman for the pro-Clinton Ready For Hillary super PAC. “The best way
for her supporters to respond is by doubling down on the positive effort to
build a grass-roots army of supporters to help her win.”

Some of the attacks are personal: Walker, 47, said this week that he could
run for president in 20 years and be the same age as Clinton is now. Some
are about Clinton’s policies and politics, as articulated over her long
career and on the stump for fellow Democrats in the midterms.

Even before the full extent of the Democratic rout was known on election
night, Paul tweeted a picture of Clinton side-hugging losing Kentucky
Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes. He labeled it with the hashtag
“#Hillaryslosers.”

Republicans are hoping that Clinton is tainted by her party’s midterm
defeat. They are also attacking her on issues such as Asia policy, the
Keystone XL pipeline and the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Paul began focusing on Clinton before she stepped down as secretary of
state. At a Senate hearing in January 2013, Paul told Clinton he would have
fired her over the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Paul later
suggested that the episode should disqualify Clinton from higher office.

Paul, 51, and some other Republicans have also suggested Clinton may not be
up to the physical rigors of a second run for president. She suffered a
head injury in a fall two years ago that sidelined her for weeks but has
said she has no lingering effects.

Republican strategist Karl Rove came under fire this year for seeming to
suggest that she had suffered a “traumatic brain injury” in the fall; he
later disavowed intending to say that.

In 2015, as Republican presidential hopefuls compete against each other,
the RNC’s role will be to “reintroduce Clinton” in a negative light, said
RNC communications director Sean Spicer. “It’s not a silver bullet, but
it’s chink after chink after chink in her armor,” he said.

The RNC’s war room has been trained on Clinton for months and made much of
Clinton’s stumbles during interviews to promote her June memoir, “Hard
Choices.”

America Rising, the GOP research and communications shop founded by former
presidential campaign operatives, has been leading the attack against
Clinton for more than a year. Tim Miller, the group’s executive director,
said Clinton’s “limbo state” — before the expected announcement of her
candidacy — makes her especially susceptible to hits from Republicans.

“It’s an opportunity for our side to continue to define her and to continue
to highlight her weaknesses before she has a campaign infrastructure that’s
fully up and operational,” Miller said.

America Rising took another swing at Clinton on Tuesday over the Keystone
oil pipeline, which was rejected by the Senate on Tuesday night.

The project has divided Democrats, and President Obama has signaled that he
is leaning against approving the huge project to pump oil from Canada to
the Gulf of Mexico. Clinton has declined to offer a public opinion on
Keystone, arguing that her connection to the State Department — which is
leading the Obama administration’s review of the project — prevents her
from taking sides.

“She wrote a book called ‘Hard Choices,’ but she wouldn’t take an opinion
on the Keystone pipeline,” Miller said. “She may be the only person in
America without a position on the Keystone pipeline at this point.”

A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

For Clinton, however, there is little apparent upside to taking a stance
now. If she comes out in favor of the pipeline, she will anger
environmental and climate activists, including megadonor Tom Steyer and
many other major Democratic contributors. If she opposes it, she will be at
odds with many business leaders.

Republicans intend to make life similarly uncomfortable for Clinton by
combing through her State Department tenure and dipping into the scandals
and controversies of her husband’s administration. Of course, they will
also seek ways to tie Clinton to Obama, whose popularity is stuck
underwater.

“Like anything in life, preparation is the key to success,” Priebus said.
“I’m a big believer that the most prepared team wins.”

*The Hill: “Clinton enjoys unofficial candidacy”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/224638-clinton-enjoys-unofficial-candidacy>*

By Amie Parnes

November 19, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

Sometimes Hillary Clinton is happy to embrace President Obama’s positions.

Sometimes Clinton is happy to distance herself from Obama.

And sometimes she just wants to stay out of it, such as with the battle
over approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Clinton, who is weighing whether to make a second White House bid, hasn’t
taken sides over the pipeline since the midterm elections spelled disaster
for Democrats, nor did she weigh in in her memoir or during her book tour
this summer.

A Clinton spokesman didn’t respond to an email asking about the former
secretary of State’s position, and more than 10 Clinton allies declined to
comment, underscoring the precarious politics involved with a project that
is vehemently opposed by green groups crucial in a Democratic presidential
primary, but that is supported by many white working-class voters important
in a general election.

The Keystone caution differs from Clinton’s moves to distance herself from
Obama’s handling of Syria and her willingness to tie herself to Obama on
other issues, such as immigration.

It shows a willingness by the front-runner for the Democratic nomination to
handle the issues of Obama’s presidency on a case-by-case basis, in
whatever way is most convenient for her own political future.

“This is why it’s convenient not to be an official candidate,” said Julian
Zelizer, a professor of public affairs and history at Princeton University.
“It’s easier to pick and choose what to speak about, while letting the
president handle his own controversial issues.”

On immigration, another high-profile issue confronting the White House,
allies say Clinton will tie herself to Obama’s executive actions. They
mostly see the expected immigration executive action as a win-win for
Clinton, because Obama moving to give legal status to millions of
immigrants could excite Hispanic and Asian-American voters who have become
crucial parts of Democratic presidential coalitions.

“It’s an early win for her,” said one former Clinton aide who worked on her
2008 presidential campaign. “The Republicans are still trying to figure out
their position on this, and this helps her secure a huge bloc of voters.
It’s probably the best thing Obama could have done for her.”

Clinton knows that, if she runs for the White House, she’ll be asked about
every move the president makes. She and her team will have to be ready to
embrace Obama where it suits them, and to cast him aside when that would
better serve her candidacy.

And there will be some issues where it’s best to stay quiet — especially
now, during an “interim period,” as one ally put it, when she’s not a
candidate for the White House.

They say that, for now, it makes the most sense to speak broadly about the
challenges the country faces and not get weighed down by the trench warfare
of day-to-day tactical battles.

One of the only Clintonites willing to talk about Keystone said it’s a
no-brainer for her to dodge the issue.

“There are a million reasons for why she wouldn’t want to weigh in, but I
can’t think of one good reason for her to speak her mind on the issue, at
least right now,” the source said, adding that Clinton is “not at the State
Department anymore, is not in elected office and is not a candidate.”

Zelizer said Clinton likely hopes the issue will move on before she has to
make a public comment about it.

“If she has the option of keeping quiet, which as a not-yet candidate she
does, this is a smart move,” he said. “She is hoping that the president can
resolve this, or the issue fades before she needs to deal with it.”

But it will be increasingly difficult to dodge these questions if her White
House bid becomes official. And make no mistakes about it, Democratic
rivals and Republicans alike will press her on the issue.

“What is Secretary Clinton afraid of when it comes to Keystone?” said Tim
Miller, the executive director of the super-PAC America Rising, which has
been targeting Clinton. “Environmentalist mega-donors who did nothing to
stop the Democrats’ widespread election losses?

“It’s this type of overtly political posturing that turned voters off to
her in 2008 and will cost her again next year,” Miller added. “Voters want
to know where you stand.” But those in Hillaryland say she has lots of time
to make her positions known.

“This is her time to kick back, make a decision and not worry about the
nitty-gritty,” said one former aide who worked on her 2008 campaign. “She
can stay above the fray.”

*Huffington Post opinion: Melanne Verveer: “Driving Growth through Women's
Economic Participation”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanne-verveer/driving-growth-through-wo_b_6179734.html>*

By Melanne Verveer

November 18, 2014, 4:13 p.m. EST

Women's economic participation is a game-changer with the potential to
transform entire economies and societies. The recently released World
Economic Forum Gender Gap Report shows that while progress has been made in
closing the gender gap, there is still much work to be done. In 2006, 56%
of the economic participation gender gap had been closed, and that number
is now 60%. It is critical that we focus our efforts on closing the divide
in women's participation in the formal economy in order to grow economies,
create jobs and enhance inclusive prosperity for all.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton put women's economic
participation on the foreign policy agenda. Recently, at Georgetown
University, she reiterated why: "If we pay extra attention to getting women
into the formal economy, it will be good for everybody...We have to unlock
the potential of every person, and grow the economies of every nation. It's
the only way we're going to be able to grow together." As Secretary Clinton
mentioned, if we were to close the gender gap on women's economic
participation, global GDP would grow by over 12%.

Some countries are tackling these issues head on. Japan's Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe has made women's economic participation, or womenomics, an
integral part of his economic stimulus agenda. With an aging workforce and
a low birth rate, Japan's labor force can no longer support the size of the
country's economy, which has been stagnant for years. By closing the gender
gap, Japan could boost its GDP by almost 13%. Prime Minister Abe has been
working to reform the tax code, improve access to childcare and eldercare,
reform immigration laws, and increase female participation in government in
order to improve women's economic participation. Abe sees women's economic
participation as critical to Japan's revitalization and long-term growth.

This issue, however, is not just the responsibility of governments. The
private sector plays a crucial role in catalyzing change, and corporations
have the opportunity to be on the cutting edge. Access to finance, access
to technology, sourcing from women-owned businesses, and changes to
corporate culture all have the potential to increase women's participation
and transform business as we know it. It has been demonstrated that
diversity and inclusion are not only the right things for businesses to do,
they also make the most business sense. Companies that are more diverse
financially outperform their less diverse counterparts by about 18%. It has
also been shown that companies with more women on their boards of directors
experience higher financial performance.

Accessing capital is a worldwide problem that female entrepreneurs face
when trying to start or grow their small businesses. Women have a much more
difficult time securing loans than men. This is as true for the CEO of a
tech startup in the U.S. as for the seamstress in India who runs her own
shop. Globally, women entrepreneurs, who earn billions in income each year,
are a largely untapped market for financial institutions. By removing
barriers and helping women secure loans, not only do women-owned businesses
grow, but financial institutions can increase their profits as well.

Access to technology is also becoming increasingly essential for women's
economic participation. For example, a simple cell phone can revolutionize
the way women do business. For a rural woman farmer trying to sell produce
in Kenya, it can mean finding out where the closest market is on a given
day. Cellular phones can also help women manage their finances and protect
their savings. Mobile banking can enable the majority of the world's poor
who are unbanked to access financial services for the first time. Likewise,
mobile education applications provide training on important skills and
resources to which women may not otherwise have access, such as financial
literacy, management and leadership strategies, and networks of supporters
and peers.

Many companies have started to source their products from women-owned
businesses, and women often prefer to buy products from other women. Adding
more women to the supply chain is an essential step large corporations can
take to to leverage the power of the female economy.

Corporate culture can greatly women's participation in the workforce. For
example, policies on parental leave, telecommuting, and flexible work hours
influence women's ability to enter and remain in the workplace. Mentorship
and sponsorship programs, elevating women into senior management positions,
and adding women to corporate boards also further women's ability to
succeed and make a greater contribution to the economy and society.

This is an evidence-based case built on a growing body of research and
data. Women are game-changers in the economic sphere; their full economic
participation drives prosperity for all. Data and analysis have shown that
women's economic participation is good for families, communities,
societies, and countries, and it is good for business too. We can and must
capitalize on the power of women's economic participation to transform the
lives of individuals, businesses, and the entire global economy.

*Politico: “Ready for Hillary ready to end”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/ready-for-hillary-ready-to-end-113018.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

November 18, 2014, 11:53 p.m. EST

When staffers and supporters of Ready for Hillary gather Friday at a
conference in Manhattan, the all-day event will mark the beginning of the
end for the grassroots super PAC that was an impressive branding exercise
that, for better or worse, helped freeze the field of competition against
Hillary Clinton for 2016.

The lower-dollar super PAC is set to begin its wind-down once Hillary
Clinton declares her candidacy for president – something her allies insist
she still may not do but which most expect her to.

For the nearly two years it’s been in existence, Ready for Hillary has been
described as a shadow campaign for Clinton, an imprecise shorthand that
both oversold and undersold the work the group was doing.

It was never intended to be a substitute for an actual campaign or signify
a field operation that could be turned into the real thing with the flip of
a switch, its organizers say – it was meant to harness energy, build a list
and be the focal point where her supporters could look. There was never
intense modeling beyond its direct-mail list, according to people familiar
with its work. (Early discussions about doing more advanced modeling using
voter data was abandoned, according to sources familiar with the work.)

“The goal of this organization has always been clear — Ready for Hillary
has an explicit mission and a stated path to accomplish it,” said Tracy
Sefl, a senior adviser to the group. “Now, there are several million people
who can take pride in — and rightly claim credit for — the progress made.
Ready for Hillary isn’t done, but we’re still very grateful for the
opportunity to reflect on where we are and what all of these supporters
have helped build.”

It also survived efforts to either curtail or outright stamp out its
efforts in the first half of 2013, when some Clinton advisers grew alarmed
by its presence. It ultimately became one of the most memorable political
brands over the last two years.

Exactly when it will come to an end is unclear – it will likely exist for a
period of time if Clinton declares, going through a formal process of
closing accounts and wrapping up loose ends.

When it winds down, it will have a Facebook page with more than 3 million
supporters and, people familiar with the group’s work say, an enhanced
voter list that improved on Clinton’s own 2008 campaign data while
attracting new names. The goal is to ultimately provide the new data to her
campaign in the form of a swap, a move that the group’s critics have argued
will prove harder than it thinks. They aggressively used social media and
hawked “Ready for Hillary” merchandise, which raised money and helped build
on the list.

But the group’s officials say they have figured out how it will work from
their end. And when she declares, there are tentative plans to find a way
to move the supporters from the Facebook page over to her social media
accounts, possibly through an email.

Founded by former Hillary Clinton staffer Adam Parkhomenko, a 29-year-old
who hatched the idea shortly after President Obama’s re-election, the group
initially struggled for traction. But it soon became ubiquitous – the
“Ready for…” phrasing worked its way into the political vernacular in the
form of headlines and borrowed use by other elected officials. A
pro-Elizabeth Warren group copied its name, appearing as “Ready for Warren.”

“I’ve always looked at Hillary as a brand,” Parkhomenko, the group’s
executive director, told Slate last year, at a time when few reporters were
giving it much attention. “That’s been especially true in the last couple
of years. It’s a brand I believe in. It’s a brand I want to protect. It’s a
brand I want to build.”

It may have been inadvertent, but “branding” was very much what Ready for
Hillary accomplished – elevating her name and celebrity to great heights.
The New Hampshire Jefferson-Jackson Democratic Dinner in October, where
Bill Clinton spoke, was draped with signs made by the super PAC, which had
“Ready” references to the state’s two top-level candidates, Gov. Maggie
Hassan and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.

In nearly two years, officials with the group said, it’s attracted almost
35,000 volunteers, hired 29 staffers raised more than $10 million and spent
almost as much as it’s raised, primarily on fundraising and list-building.
Ready for Hillary had trouble getting any press attention at first, but got
key validation when it hired President Barack Obama’s former field
organizer’s firm, 270 Strategies.

Some Obama advisers have publicly questioned the utility for Clinton, who
is still formulating a message for a likely candidacy, in having an
apparatus bearing her name so early in the cycle.

Some Obama advisers have publicly questioned the utility for Clinton, who
is still formulating a message for a likely candidacy, in having an
apparatus bearing her name so early in the cycle.

Eventually, Ready for Hillary and another pro-Clinton entity, the
high-dollar Priorities USA, brokered peace, in part with the help of
current White House aide John Podesta, who was out of government at the
time. It also got early support from top Bill and Hillary Clinton adviser
Minyon Moore, a Dewey Square Group strategist who saw value in the
organizing work the group was doing, even as other Clinton advisers said it
would add to the aura of inevitability she was hoping to shed.

Moore and another Dewey Square official, Jill Alper, have worked with the
group since in a volunteer capacity, people familiar with the work say.

When Craig Smith, a Clinton White House political director and old Arkansas
friend of the former first couple, came on board as a senior adviser, it
also added gravitas. And an early goal was to have a media-friendly
approach.

In the meantime, the group began establishing some form of a presence in
every state, either through fundraisers or rallies. It became the official
vehicle by which surrogates offered support for Clinton — with Missouri
Sen. Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, coming on as one of the early
big names.

“We said from the beginning that empowering and engaging grass-roots
supporters early on are the most critical components of building a winning,
21st century campaign — and frankly everything we’ve witnessed over the
past year and a half of working with Ready for Hillary has only reinforced
this perspective,” said 270 Strategies’ Lynda Tran. “We continue to believe
that a successful, presidential-level effort needs to integrate a
data-driven, people-focused approach with smart digital and communications
strategies.”

Yet, field organizing is difficult to do without a candidate, even when
there is an idea of one. Outside groups rarely conduct field operations,
since unlike TV ad spending by independent entities, it’s very hard to
track and therefore not duplicate.

It was “inspired by a campaign field structure, but the scale and focus are
very different,” said one official working with the group. “The structure
is essentially two streams that work in concert with each other — a general
field stream and a constituency organizing stream.”

That included a lot of chaser events during Clinton’s book tour, replete
with a “Ready for Hillary” bus at which people who showed up to see her
could leave their names. Clinton herself was said to appreciate the concept
of the bus, which has visited college campuses.

Among its most visible activities has been maintaining a presence in Iowa,
where Clinton struggled in the 2008 caucuses. Veteran organizer Teresa
Vilmain, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign, has advised Ready for
Hillary. Among the group’s major efforts was surrounding the annual and
final Sen. Tom Harkin Steak Fry in September with a ring of signs that bore
its trademark font, but simply said “Ready.” or “Thank you Tom.”

“From the get-go, they were clear about their organizational goals and
communicated them well. As in — find people that are RFH and collect their
contact information,” she wrote in an email.

Where some Clinton advisers have expressed concern is that her status as a
political celebrity didn’t need enhancing, and a super PAC asking if people
were “ready” for her implied that. And the group’s detractors have argued
that almost everything it did would happen as soon as she declares. In a
New York Times piece last year, some of the group’s detractors described it
as a “make-work” program for people hovering around “Hillaryland.”

Whether Clinton, who was a global figure as secretary of state, can
effectively connect with voters after living in the State Department bubble
and in a life of extreme wealth is a question her supporters have.

Some RFH critics believe people involved with the group are seeking jobs
with her eventual campaign. Clinton’s own aides haven’t addressed that, but
the group’s supporters say they would be surprised if Clinton didn’t bring
on some of those involved given their work so far.

But ultimately, the perception of the group as a juggernaut helped freeze
operatives who might have worked for a rival candidate, and gave pause to
the group’s admirers had little downside.

“They got a two-year head start,” said one supporter.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Fundraisers Rev Up for
Possible Hillary Clinton Run”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/19/fundraisers-rev-up-for-possible-hillary-clinton-run/>*

By Peter Nicholas

November 19, 2014, 6:48 a.m. EST

The fundraising machinery in support of Hillary Clinton’s anticipated
presidential bid is churning along, with multiple events in the coming
weeks aimed at smoothing her entrance into the 2016 contest.

A group of New Jersey-based Democratic fundraisers and political operatives
has scheduled a dinner in Newark on Monday to gather commitments for a
donation to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as soon as she announces she’s running,
according to a person familiar with the event. About three dozen people are
expected to attend. The organizers are Michael Kempner, a public relations
executive, and Josh Gottheimer, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House.
The pair organized a similar event last month.

“People understand that it will be very important for Hillary to make a
significant financial statement right out of the box,” said the person
familiar with the effort. “People want to be there to step up quickly and
aggressively.”

Separately, the super PAC Ready for Hillary is holding a fundraising event
in Philadelphia on Dec.  2 with tickets ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, a
copy of the invitation shows. Ready for Hillary is also holding a meeting
of its national finance council in New York City on Friday.

Mrs. Clinton isn’t a candidate yet, though she has said she’ll announce a
decision in the new year.

Ready for Hillary has been collecting names and email addresses of Clinton
supporters, compiling lists that it will eventually make available to her
campaign should she jump in the race.

The event on Dec. 2 will be hosted by Leonard Barrack, a longtime
Democratic fundraiser. Harold Ickes, a former Clinton White House official
and a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, is listed as the special
guest. Those who donate $5,000 are invited to a special “VIP reception,”
the invitation shows.

*The Atlantic: “Hillary’s Silence on Iran and Immigration Reform”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/hillarys-silence-on-iran-and-immigration-reform/382895/>*

By Peter Beinart

November 19, 2014, 7:00 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The cautious Clinton of 2008 is back—and that shows why it's so
essential she face a Democratic challenger in 2016.

Two weeks after the midterms, we now know that President Obama is headed
toward collisions with the Republican Congress over immigration reform,
climate change, and perhaps a nuclear deal with Iran. What we don’t know is
whether Hillary Clinton will have his back.

On climate change, the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee seems most in
sync with her former boss. In September, she called warming “the most
consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a
nation and a world.” The New York Times recently speculated that since John
Podesta, the man behind Obama’s climate-change efforts, will likely play a
key role in her campaign, Clinton will publicly embrace Obama’s EPA
regulations and his recent climate deal with Beijing, despite Republican
fury.

But on immigration and Iran, it’s harder to tell. On immigration, Clinton
has a history of trying to play it safe. At a presidential debate in
October 2007, she famously refused to state clearly whether she supported
then-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s initiative to grant drivers’
licenses to illegal immigrants. (“Do I think this is the best thing for any
governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation,
trying to get a handle on this?”)

Today, Clinton clearly supports legislation to allow many of the
undocumented to remain in the U.S. But when it comes to Obama’s effort to
achieve that goal through executive action—an initiative he delayed this
summer but seems set to implement now—she has studiously avoided taking a
position. In September in Iowa, when an immigration activist named Cesar
Vargas asked an autograph-signing Clinton “if you stand by the president’s
delay on immigration,” she replied, “I think we have to elect more
Democrats.” The following month in North Carolina, when 25-year-old Oliver
Merino told Hillary that his mother risked being deported, she replied, “I
understand immigration is an important issue, and we appreciate that. We
thank you for your advocacy.”

When it comes to Obama’s Iran policy, Clinton has been slightly less cagey
and slightly more negative. In late 2007, she ran to Obama’s right on Iran,
calling him “irresponsible and frankly naïve” for agreeing to meet without
preconditions with Tehran’s leaders. This May, she declared, “I am also
personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver” on
a nuclear deal. She’s also laid out tougher terms for such a deal than her
former Obama administration colleagues. In July, she told Fareed Zakaria,
“I believe strongly that it’s really important for there to be so little
[uranium] enrichment or no enrichment, at least for a long period of time,”
even though John Kerry, her successor as secretary of state, had already
acknowledged, “I can’t tell you they might not have some enrichment” as
part of a final nuclear deal. Just last week, Haim Saban, one of Clinton’s
biggest donors, criticized Obama for having “shown too many carrots and a
very small stick” in its dealings with Iran. Saban also endorsed
legislation that would require Obama to gain congressional approval for any
nuclear deal, something the White House will almost certainly resist.

Perhaps the biggest reason Clinton hasn’t yet backed Obama’s efforts on
immigration and Iran is that she hasn’t had to. Obama has not yet taken
executive action on deportations, nor have his negotiators inked an
agreement with Tehran. But that hasn’t stopped plenty of other politicians
from tipping their hand. And it hasn’t stopped Clinton from taking
positions on other issues—for instance, raising the minimum wage—where no
presidential action is imminent.

The other likely motive for Clinton’s coyness is her desire to avoid
inheriting Obama’s baggage in 2016. Even if immigration reform is popular,
Obama’s efforts to implement it unilaterally may not be. And as Saban’s
comments suggest, an Iran deal will provoke fierce opposition not only
among Republicans but among some of the hawkish “pro-Israel” Democrats to
whom Clinton is close.

But whether or not keeping her distance is good politics for Clinton, it’s
bad politics for Obama. By distancing herself from Obama’s efforts, she
encourages Democrats in Congress to do the same, especially those in more
conservative states or dependent on more hawkish donors. And given the
furious opposition Obama’s efforts will spark among Republicans, a public
split among Washington Democrats will make it harder for him to prevail.

All of which shows why it’s important that Clinton face a primary
challenger. It’s the only way that progressives, who overwhelmingly support
Obama on immigration and Iran, can influence her behavior. As I’ve written
at some length, Clinton could prove an unusually savvy, capable, and
effective president. But there’s a reason Democrats chose Obama instead of
her in 2008: Because from granting drivers’ licenses for the undocumented
to invading Iraq, she refused to break decisively from the Beltway
conventional wisdom that many liberals believed was hurting the country. As
Obama said at an Iowa dinner in October 2007, in his most devastating
attack of the primary, “Triangulating and poll-driven positions because
we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do.”

Clinton’s relative silence this year on both immigration and Iran suggests
that some of that caution remains. If Democrats don’t want it to undermine
Obama’s final year in the White House, they need to show that it could
undermine her chances of getting their herself.

*Politico: “Democrats to Obama: You broke the party, now fix it”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-democrats-113016.html>*

By Edward-Isaac Dovere

November 18, 2014, 10:35 p.m. EST

Enough, Donna Brazile told White House political director David Simas the
day after the midterms.

Democrats are in worse shape than when President Barack Obama came into
office — the number of seats they have in Congress, the number of
governors, a party approval rating that’s fallen behind Republicans for the
first time in recent history, enthusiasm, energy. The White House, Brazile
said when she came to meet with Simas, has got to focus for the next two
years on getting the party into better shape, and Obama’s the best and most
effective person to get out the message.

As much Hillary Clinton anticipation as there is, two weeks later,
Democrats are still reeling and anxious. Obama may have built his political
career without the party — and created anti-establishment alternatives —
but he’s a lame duck with a new Congress that’s been elected to oppose him.
He needs Democrats. And they need him.

“The base craves his leadership,” Brazile said in an interview later that
week, following a meeting of the DNC committee that’s beginning to set the
rules for the next presidential nomination. “They want him in the mix,
talking about what Democrats accomplished, what Democrats are fighting for,
and what the president has done to make lives better.”

Nancy Pelosi was reelected minority leader. So was Harry Reid. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz’s term at the DNC isn’t up until 2017. Obama said
repeatedly before and after the votes were counted that he wasn’t going to
fire anyone because of election results. But if no one’s going to take the
blame for 2014, Democrats are hoping he’ll take responsibility for getting
things better for 2016.

“He may or may not be the best messenger,” said Vic Fazio, the former
California congressman who was the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee chair for the 1994 rout. “But at this point, he is still our
messenger. And the first year is very important.”

At least until the next presidential campaign begins in earnest, Democrats
say, it’ll be up to Obama to centralize the Democratic message around
something other than simply trying to paint the Republicans as extreme.

Interviews with leading party strategists turn to three main suggestions:
Obama should be a much more frequent and strong voice on Democratic
priorities, he should transform his West Wing political office from a
midterm clearinghouse to an instrument for true party outreach, and he
should reinvest his energy in the Democratic National Committee — including
seeking a full-time chair who can begin the major clean-up and overhaul
they need ahead of 2016.

And if doing it for the party isn’t enough for Obama, Democrats say, do it
out of self-interest.

“A strong party is the key to a lasting legacy,” said a senior Democratic
strategist. “Whether it’s for our ideals as Democrats or it’s for his
personal legacy — if we lose the White House and continue to get gutted
down ballot, they will repeal the ACA and everything else we’ve fought so
hard for, and all of this will be for naught.”

That should be a short-term worry for Obama too, Brazile said.

“The Republicans have not retreated from the battlefield, so why should
President Obama surrender?” she said. “He can’t give up, he can’t waver.
All of that looks to Democrats like he doesn’t stand for much, and it’s not
the truth.”

In the West Wing, they’ve been projecting optimism since the midterms. The
trip to Asia was a success, they say: Obama showed with the China carbon
emissions deal how big and how bold he could go without Congress. He
ignited a national debate from the other side of the planet by making a few
short comments and releasing a fact sheet about net neutrality. There was
progress, even, on the trade deals that might make up a big chunk of the
limited agenda on which the White House is hoping to find workable
compromises with Republicans.

Look for more of that kind of leveraging of the president’s existing power
and bully pulpit to tackle base priorities, aides say. White House chief of
staff Denis McDonough initiated a process about a month before Election Day
of internal conversations and outside advice, and they’re already in the
initial stages of formulating a State of the Union they promise will be
heavy on new proposals — which aides insist has so far not been reshaped by
the Republican wins or loss of the Senate.

Behind closed doors, they’re a little more shaken.

“People are licking their wounds… trying to figure out where they go from
here: ‘Can we be the phoenix rising from the ashes?’ Where are these issues
where he’s going to dig in his heels and fight? Where does he compromise
with Republicans, and how does he manage the politics of that?” said a
Democratic strategist familiar with the White House.

Through the election cycle, people in the White House would often say they
felt frustrated and Obama to get out more and talk more about his message.
Now, aides see two years of opportunities for a president who won’t be
constrained anymore, who’ll be able to say what he wants without worrying
about how it could scramble anyone else’s political considerations.

Great, Democrats say. Now make something of it. Talk about the economic
progress that’s happened. Talk about how to achieve job growth to build on
it.

“The best thing he can do is focus on income inequality, and talk about and
propose things, and just be a fierce advocate for addressing the economic
divide,” said another Democratic strategist with ties to the White House.
“That will leave people after two years saying the Democratic Party really
stands for something.”

“What Bush failed to do, and to some extent Bill Clinton failed to do, is
to make the final two years of their presidency something big, and advocate
for it and make it a defining characteristic of the party,” the strategist
said. “You have to come something that defines who your party is — even if
you don’t make law and you’re not successful in the effort.”

The White House declined comment on its own political plans, but over at
the DNC, they say they’re already feeling good about the level of Obama
involvement that many people in and around the party headquarters have
complained about for years.

“This president has been incredibly engaged and helpful to everything we’ve
done,” said DNC communications director Mo Elleithee, citing Obama’s help
on measures including retiring the DNC debt and beefing up the party data
infrastructure. “He’s helped grow the party infrastructure nationally ever
since his 2008 campaign, and he’s all in with us moving forward.”

In Congress, where most Democrats feel bruised and battered from what most
say has been a consistently standoffish and inattentive president, even
among those who speak most warmly about him, there’s a warning that he
can’t count on the caucus’s unwavering support over the next two years.

“When it comes to climate, and when it comes to immigration, we’re in sort
of alignment. In trade and other areas, it’s not so clear,” said Sen. Brian
Schatz (D-Hawaii). “It’s going to depend on the issue, the kind of
coalition.”

But fixing the political problems is going to be even tougher given the
history over the last six years, said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.).

“We have lost our way. It’s a stormy ocean and we’re trying to find out way
back to land to see where the hell we are,” Pascrell said. “But you can’t
get back to land until you have a deep discussion, not just a
philosophical, but a tangible, discussion about where we are as a party.
It’s kind of difficult in the last two years of the presidency to do that
because we have not had that kind of relationship.”

Obama, said a White House aide speaking the day before the election, is
very interested in the question of his political legacy himself.

“He brought a bunch of people in the process in ’08. They sat out in ’10.
Then it was a real question. Then they came out again in really good
numbers in ’12. Are these people going to become Democratic voters? Are we
going to be able to turn the Obama voter into a Democratic voter the way
Reagan was able to turn the Reagan Democrat into a Republican?” the aide
said. “If you can do that, we will not just be a presidential party, we
will also have success in congressional elections, but also the priorities
that we care about will be the ones that shape the discussion going
forward.”

Asked how that process was going so far, the aide deferred.

“We don’t know. We’ll see.”

*Politico: “Beyond Senate defeat, ill omens for Keystone”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/beyond-senate-defeat-ill-omens-for-keystone-113015.html>*

By Andrew Restuccia

November 18, 2014, 10:01 p.m. EST

Never mind the cliffhanger defeat for the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Even if
the Senate had passed the bill Tuesday, hints are mounting that President
Barack Obama has hardened his stance against the $8 billion project and
would veto any legislation green-lighting it, whether it comes from the
current Democratic Senate or next year’s Republican Senate.

The last two weeks offer the strongest evidence to date that Obama may
reject the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline in the end: He made a
groundbreaking global warming deal with China — the latest sign that he is
building a serious climate change legacy. He has been more dismissive than
ever of GOP arguments that Keystone would be a major job creator. And he
has lost much of the political urgency for considering the pipeline — the
most vulnerable red-state Democrats lost on Election Day, so there’s less
reason to cater to endangered centrists begging for a “yes” vote on
Keystone.

Obama’s former aides, and others closely following the
six-years-and-running Keystone drama, insist he still has plenty of wiggle
room to rule either way when he finally renders a verdict, which could come
in early 2015. The administration’s official stance is that it’s still
awaiting the outcome of the State Department’s review of the project’s
merits.

But the latest remarks from the White House, and the president himself,
have been increasingly bullish against the pipeline — and especially
against attempts by Congress to force his hand. Some of his recent comments
also mirror the arguments of green activists who allege that the pipeline
would mainly be a boon for Canada’s oil export market.

“I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone
pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is
somehow lowering gas prices,” Obama said during a news conference last week
in Myanmar. “Understand what the project is: It is providing the ability of
Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf, where
it will be sold everywhere else.”

Republicans made it clear Tuesday that they’ll try again when they take
over the Senate in January, with a pro-Keystone majority large enough to
overcome any filibuster. They and the pipeline’s Democratic supporters say
they’re increasingly confident they can force the president’s hand by
attaching a pro-pipeline measure to must-pass legislation or, less likely,
by securing the 67 Senate votes needed to override a veto.

“There’s always room for a deal,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a vocal
Keystone supporter.

But giving in on the pipeline would contradict Obama’s message on climate
change, environmental groups and the president’s climate allies on the Hill
say, especially given his devotion to reaching an international deal in
Paris at the end of 2015. Despite the State Department’s repeated
conclusions that the project would pose little risk of environmental
damage, the pipeline has drawn greens’ ire because of the large amounts of
greenhouse gases produced by western Canada’s oil sands region.

“Given all the major strides the president has taken to cut carbon
pollution, we are more confident than ever that he will reject this dirty
and dangerous pipeline,” League of Conservation Voters President Gene
Karpinski said.

Approving Keystone would be “out of step with saving the planet from
devastating climate change … just as we’re starting to make progress,” said
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
who led the debate against the Keystone bill.

Another Senate climate hawk, Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, was
more cautious about reading too much into the Beijing deal as a crystal
ball on Keystone. “The problem with these conversations is that we often
presume they are logical … when we have a big and powerful industry that’s
trying to have its way,” he said.

The European Union’s top climate change official, Connie Hedegaard, has
called on Obama to reject Keystone, saying it would send a “strong signal”
about his seriousness on global warming.

Green activists this week offered a preview of what they have in store for
Obama if he approves the project and, in their view, tarnishes his
environmental legacy. They staged sit-ins at the Senate offices of
Democrats who supported the pipeline bill and flooded fence-straddling
senators’ offices with phone calls, even accusing one blue-state senator —
Cory Booker (D-N.J.) — of “throwing our families in the Heartland under the
bus” if he were to vote yes. (Booker voted no on the bill.)

While Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) desperately tried to whip votes for the
Keystone bill, greens worked the phones to shore up opposition from liberal
Senate Democrats. Top officials at the League of Conservation Voters, the
Sierra Club and 350.org all waited outside the Senate chamber as Tuesday’s
drama played out, and people from the groups were seen congratulating
several senators when the bill failed.

The White House had stopped short of threatening to veto the bill, although
press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday that Obama “doesn’t support” the
legislation and opposes efforts to circumvent the State Department process.

Even if Congress never passes another Keystone bill, the completion of the
State Department’s analysis would eventually bring the saga to a close. But
when that happens is anybody’s guess.

The department halted its review last spring to await the outcome of a
Nebraska Supreme Court case involving a challenge to the pipeline’s route
inside the state. The court could rule any day now, after which it could
take weeks or months for the State Department to wrap up its analysis.

The final outcome will pose political difficulties no matter how Obama
rules, displeasing either his green base or pro-oil Democrats and
jobs-eager labor unions. Opinion polls consistently find the project
popular with large majorities of Americans. In addition, Democrats would
gain some political advantage from Obama settling the issue sooner rather
than later, if only to keep it from burdening a 2016 White House run by
Hillary Clinton.

Obama has never said where he stands on the pipeline’s merits, and his
words and actions have been mixed — though increasingly critical.

“The administration is looking to keep its options open here,” one former
administration official who has been close to the issue told POLITICO
earlier this year, following the release of the latest State Department
environmental study.

Obama rejected Keystone developer TransCanada’s initial permit application
in early 2012, after Republicans pushed through a bill giving him just 60
days to decide. But after the company reapplied, he told the Army Corps of
Engineers to speed up its review of Keystone’s southern half, which runs
from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. (That portion is now operating.) He even
went to a TransCanada pipe storage yard in Oklahoma and boasted that his
administration “has approved dozens of new oil and gas pipelines over the
last three years — including one from Canada.”

But in his second term, with climate change becoming a growing priority,
his tone has turned increasingly negative.

He told Republican senators early last year that the administration is not
“ideologically averse” to the pipeline, and that “some of the environmental
concerns have been over-exaggerated,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said
afterward. But he has also accused Keystone supporters of overstating its
job-creation potential, while telling The New York Times that Canada “could
potentially be doing more” to counteract the greenhouse gas emissions being
unleashed from its oil fields.

Obama’s most noteworthy public statement on the pipeline was his June 2013
declaration that “our national interest will be served only if this project
does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution” — but
Keystone supporters and opponents differed dramatically on what they
thought he meant. Greens argued that the pipeline couldn’t possibly clear
that bar, while supporters of the project pointed to the past State
Department studies as evidence that it already has.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who voted against the Senate bill Tuesday, said
Obama needs to end the suspense.

“Well, I do think the president ought to move ahead and make a decision,”
King said. The power to make that decision was entrusted to him, and I
think he should exercise it.”

*Los Angeles Times column: Doyle McManus: “A Bernie Sanders candidacy could
help Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-column-sanders-democrats-2016-20141119-11-column.html>*

By Doyle  McManus

November 18, 2014, 4:54 p.m. PST

I'm going out on a limb here, but Bernie Sanders is not going to be our
next president. Still, the independent socialist senator from Vermont is
sounding more and more like a man who intends to defy the doubters and run.
And he could play an important role in the campaign.

Sanders hasn't formally announced his candidacy; he hasn't even changed his
party registration. (If he runs, it will be in the Democratic primaries.)
But he's doing everything an aspiring candidate needs to do. He's traveled
to Iowa and New Hampshire. He's signed up (provisionally) a high-powered
campaign manager, Tad Devine, who worked on the presidential campaigns of
John F. Kerry and Al Gore. He's buttonholing reporters with even more zeal
than usual. And this week, he even submitted to the gentle ridicule of faux
conservative Stephen Colbert to win seven minutes of national television
time.

“A self-described socialist!” Colbert faux-sneered. “Do you frighten people
when you walk around the Capitol? Are they afraid you're going to take
their tractor and give it to the whole village?”

“Hopefully we frighten the billionaire class,” Sanders replied as a
youthful studio audience cheered.

Get ready to hear Sanders repeat that phrase, “the billionaire class,” a
lot. It's the core of his message, the theme that makes him passionate: his
conviction that the wealthy have hijacked not only the economy, but also
the political system.

There may not have been a major-party presidential candidate with so blunt
a populist message on the economy since Franklin D. Roosevelt ran against
“economic royalists” in 1936.

“The biggest issue in the country is that we don't discuss the biggest
issue in the country,” Sanders told me in his Senate office last week.

“How does it happen that today the economists tell us that 95% of all new
income created in America goes to the top 1%? How does it happen that we
have by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major
country on Earth, where one family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns
more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American people? How does that
happen, and what do we do about it?”

Sanders' answers on what to do come from a crisp checklist: Higher taxes on
the wealthy, a much higher minimum wage, $1 trillion of new spending on
roads and public transportation and European-style national health
insurance (which he tries to make less foreign by calling it “Medicare for
all”).

He's asking the right questions. The stagnation of middle class incomes in
the midst of an economic recovery has become the central challenge for both
political parties. Exit polls in this month's midterm elections found that
63% of all voters believe the U.S. economic system isn't fair to most
Americans, but “favors the wealthy.”

But does Sanders really think his untrammeled populism can win him the
nomination, much less a general election?

“I'm running to win,” he insists. “It won't be just an educational
campaign.”

When pressed, however, he acknowledges that he thinks even a losing
campaign would be a good thing because of its potential to bring more
attention to his ideas, widen the national debate and put pressure on
Hillary Rodham Clinton or any other eventual Democratic nominee.

Win or lose, Sanders will fill a familiar role if he decides to run.
Democratic presidential primaries almost always include at least one
populist or quasi-populist candidate on the left. In 2008, it was John
Edwards. In 2004, it was Howard Dean. In 1992, it was California's own
Jerry Brown. And none of them won the nomination.

This year, there could be three candidates running to the left of Clinton.
In addition to Sanders, there might be Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (who
says he's running, but hasn't succeeded in defining much of a theme yet)
and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who spent most of the summer
saying she wouldn't run, but recently modified that to “I don't think so.”

Meanwhile, former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has been talking about running as a
moderate to Clinton's right.

Challenges like these would be a good thing for Clinton.

For one thing, they would give voters a reason to tune in to Democratic
primary debates; otherwise, the brawling Republican field would get hours
of television time all to itself.

For another, if she has challengers on both the left and right, Clinton
could conveniently cast herself as the woman in the middle, the champion of
her party's broad center.

And finally, it would be good for Clinton to work through her campaign
style in more friendly waters. The last thing she wants is to sail through
the primaries untested and have to develop her battle skills in actual
combat with her Republican opponent. “She needs to get out of the cocoon of
inevitability,” former Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod said last week.

If Clinton wins the nomination, she's unlikely to thank her Democratic
opponents for trying to stop her from breaking the glass ceiling — but she
should.

*Associated Press: “2016 contest overshadows GOP governors meeting”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e4d6baa3a47047cdb3c0a2bc0b8b6df6/2016-contest-overshadows-gop-governors-meeting>*

By Steve Peoples and Jill Colvin

November 19, 2014, 3:30 a.m. EST

BOCA RATON, Fla. (AP) — No fewer than a half-dozen potential presidential
candidates are gathering in Florida as the Republican Governors Association
prepares to select its next leader.

The organization's annual conference begins Wednesday in a luxury oceanside
resort where the nation's Republican governors will celebrate their party's
recent success in the midterm elections. Privately, they're jockeying for
position as the 2016 presidential contest looms. None of the most likely
White House candidates is expected to seek to replace New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie as chairman, a position with responsibilities that would conflict
with the presidential primary season.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would not run for the RGA chairmanship
for just that reason.

"It's pretty obvious at least it's something I should consider," Walker
said of a White House bid during an interview with The Associated Press.
"And if I'm going to do that, I'm not going to put my colleagues in the
position of having someone in place who isn't 100 percent committed to the
leadership of the organization."

The conference comes two weeks after the GOP's midterm rout, in which they
gained control of Congress and expanded their majority of governorships
across the country. In January the Republican Party will control 31
compared with Democrats' 19. The party's strong performance offers a
presidential springboard to governors who won re-election, Walker among
them, and others, like Christie, who played a leading role in the GOP's
success.

While Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the overwhelming Democratic
front-runner should she seek the presidency, the prospective Republican
field is crowded and without a clear leader. A handful of Senate
Republicans may join the 2016 contest, but many donors and party officials
would prefer a presidential nominee to emerge from the ranks of the
Republican governors, who have executive experience and are not tainted by
Congress' low approval ratings.

Christie arrives in Florida in a strong position after having broadened his
national network while raising tens of millions of dollars to help elect
Republican governors. Christie and Walker will spend this week alongside a
list of other prospective presidential candidates that includes Indiana
Gov. Mike Pence, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio
Gov. John Kasich and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

Governors, governors-elect, senior aides and prominent donors began to
descend on the Boca Raton Resort & Club on Tuesday. The bright pink resort
is a sprawling maze of fountains, manicured gardens, ballrooms and high-end
restaurants, complete with its own beach club, marina and golf clubhouse.

The coming days will be filled with dinners and receptions, where governors
can meet privately with donors and strategists. While much of this week's
action takes place behind closed doors, a Wednesday open session titled
"Republican Governors: The Road Ahead" features five prospective
presidential contenders: Pence, Perry, Jindal, Walker and Kasich.

In one of the gathering's only formal agenda items, Christie will hand over
the reins of the RGA on Thursday, ending what has arguably been a
politically life-saving tenure as the group's chairman. Beyond boosting his
2016 prospects, he has used the position to help repair his reputation
after the political retribution traffic scandal in New Jersey that badly
tainted his brand earlier in the year.

But the role has also cost him at home. An AP analysis of his public
schedule shows that Christie will have spent about 40 percent of his second
term out of state by the time he finishes up in Florida on Friday. At the
same time, his popularity has slumped at home, according to a number of
local polls, with increasingly vocal critics charging that he's neglected
local issues.

None of the Republican governors considering the presidency is particularly
popular at home, however, according to interviews with voters after this
month's midterm elections. Just a quarter of Louisiana voters said Jindal
would make a good president, while one-third of Texas voters said the same
of Perry. For Walker, who just won his third gubernatorial election in four
years, just over 4 in 10 of Wisconsin voters said he is presidential
material.

*Calendar:*

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

·  November 19  – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton is honored by the National
Breast Cancer Coalition (Breast Cancer Deadline
<http://www.breastcancerdeadline2020.org/donate/fundraising-events/2014-NY-Gala-Evite.html>
)

·  November 20  – Memphis, TN: Sec. Clinton attends the dedication of The
Marlo Thomas Center for Global Education & Collaboration at St. Jude (WMC
<http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/27188542/hillary-clinton-plans-trip-to-st-jude-former-president-bill-clinton-visits-arkansas>
)

·  November 21  – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton presides over meeting of the
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race>
)

·  November 21  – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton is honored by the New York
Historical Society (Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race>
)

·  December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of
Conservation Voters dinner (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11>
)

·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)

·  December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy
Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html>
)