Subject: Correct The Record Friday November 21, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:52:28 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday November 21, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Associated Press: “Democrats preparing for Hillary Clinton campaign”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/176d5aa2527a41ea89dd3d13e604c791/democrats-preparing-hillary-clinton-campaign>*

“Correct the Record, a rapid-response media organization that has defended
Clinton in her post-State Department period, expects to continue as a part
of research arm American Bridge.”

*Bloomberg: “Hillary Clinton's Campaign-In-Waiting Grows Restless”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-21/hillary-clintons-campaigninwaiting-grows-restless>*

“Correct the Record, founded by Clinton backer David Brock, has established
itself as the research arm, publicly defending her from Republican attacks.”

*Business Insider: “Hillary Clinton Praised Obama's Big Immigration Speech”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-just-fully-endorsed-obamas-immigration-order-2014-11>*

“Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton strongly endorsed
President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration reform minutes
after his speech concluded Thursday night.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton: GOP ‘abdication’ forced Obama’s hand on
immigration”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-gop-abdication-forced-obamas-hand-immigration>*

“The quick, strong, and proactive response to Obama’s speech Thursday is
usual, and could signal a new paradigm as she gets closer to a potential
campaign.”

*The Hill: “House Oversight chairman to put spotlight on Clinton, Benghazi”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/house/224902-chaffetz-plans-spotlight-on-clinton-benghazi#.VG5bS7rDkgI.twitter>*

“In an interview with The Hill on Thursday in his Capitol Hill office, Rep.
Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) set out a broad agenda that will include hearings
on embassy security in light of the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead.”

*The New Republic: “Sherrod Brown Should Challenge Hillary Clinton for
President”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120351/sherrod-brown-president-2016-he-should-challenge-hillary-clinton>*

“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, I think Sherrod Brown should run for
president.”

*MSNBC: “Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley present first 2016 challenges for
Clinton”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jim-webb-martin-omalley-present-first-2016-challenges-clinton>*

“Two potential challengers to Hillary Clinton, former Sen. Jim Webb and
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have clearly signaled their intent to enter
the 2016 campaign.”

*MSNBC column: Krystal Ball: “Is Jim Webb 2016’s Barack Obama?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jim-webb-2016s-barack-obama>*

“For those looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton and hoping she’ll
face a real challenge in the Democratic primary, Jim Webb’s candidacy will
certainly be an interesting one to watch.”

*The Daily Beast: “Hillary Gets a Challenger and He’s a Marine”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/hillary-gets-a-challenger-and-he-s-a-marine.html>*

[Subtitle:] “Jim Webb is officially exploring a 2016 run. Why the former
senator—and former Republican—might be able to reach the Democratic voters
that Clinton can’t.”

*National Journal: “MoveOn Warns Clinton: Back Keystone, Lose Your Base”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/moveon-warns-clinton-back-keystone-lose-your-base-20141120?ref=t.co&mrefid=walkingheader>*

“The progressive group MoveOn.org is pressing Hillary Clinton to come out
against the Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline, warning that she could lose
Democratic voters if she doesn't take a stand against the project.”

*Articles:*

*Associated Press: “Democrats preparing for Hillary Clinton campaign”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/176d5aa2527a41ea89dd3d13e604c791/democrats-preparing-hillary-clinton-campaign>*

By Ken Thomas

November 21, 2014, 3:19 a.m. EST

NEW YORK (AP) — A nexus of Democratic groups is preparing for Hillary
Rodham Clinton's widely anticipated presidential campaign.

Ready for Hillary, a Democratic super PAC unaffiliated with the former
secretary of state, is convening a daylong meeting of Clinton insiders on
Friday for strategy sessions aimed at helping elect Clinton if she runs.
The closed-door planning session about two weeks after Democrats' dismal
midterm election performance comes as Clinton, the party's leading
presidential contender, considers whether she will seek the presidency
again in 2016.

Ready for Hillary will join leaders of Democratic groups Priorities USA
Action, American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record to review the
2014 elections and prepare for next year. In some cases, the groups will be
wrapping up their efforts while others are beginning to ramp up.

"Everyone has a lane," said former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the
co-chair of Priorities USA Action and an adviser to Ready for Hillary. "We
are going to work together and seamlessly so there's no infighting."

Ready for Hillary, which was founded in 2013, has signed up more than 1.5
million people promising to help Clinton if she runs and has raised more
than $10 million to harness a grassroots community of volunteers for
Clinton. The group expects to fold if Clinton launches her presidential
campaign and then transfer its data and list of supporters to the former
first lady's campaign.

Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC that raised $70 million in
2012 to air tough ads targeting Republican Mitt Romney, has maintained a
low profile this year but is reconnecting with donors to prepare for next
year. Correct the Record, a rapid-response media organization that has
defended Clinton in her post-State Department period, expects to continue
as a part of research arm American Bridge.

The gathering is not authorized by Clinton, who will be speaking at an
event in New York on Friday promoting the use of cook stoves in developing
nations. But it will feature plenty of Democrats who have worked with her
and her husband, former President Bill Clinton: ex-White House adviser
Harold Ickes; Clinton campaign strategists James Carville and Paul Begala;
Jonathan Mantz, who served as Hillary Clinton's national finance director;
and Karen Finney, a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa governor who backed
Clinton's presidential campaign, will speak at the meeting as a private
citizen, aides said.

Donors will also hear from Democratic strategists who could play senior
roles in a future Clinton campaign, including Guy Cecil, the executive
director of the Senate Democrats' campaign arm and a former Hillary Clinton
campaign aide; Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY's List; Ace
Smith, a California-based Democratic strategist who directed Hillary
Clinton's 2008 primary campaigns in three states; and Mitch Stewart, a
former Obama campaign aide who has advised Ready for Hillary.

*Bloomberg: “Hillary Clinton's Campaign-In-Waiting Grows Restless”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-21/hillary-clintons-campaigninwaiting-grows-restless>*

By Lisa Lerer and Julie Bykowicz

November 21, 2014, 5:48 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The latest round of fundraisers highlights the breadth of
Clinton's support, and and a possible problem.

Hillary Clinton is close to being ready. Now, she just has to find a way to
tame the legions of loyalists who have been ready since their last
presidential ride ended.

The complicated political machine known as Clintonland is revving its
engine, as outside groups, top donors, and prospective aides begin
preparing for an anticipated formal announcement of her presidential
candidacy early next year. In the coming week alone there will be a
half-dozen fundraisers aimed at greasing the path toward her 2016 debut.
Some events are aimed at scooping up checks for existing pro-Clinton
groups, while others will pocket financial "commitments" for a future
campaign account.

The main event is Friday's all-day donor gathering in New York City,
featuring Clinton confidants from Arkansas to the State Department.  Next
up, would-be campaign financiers are holding 30-person dinners in Newark
and New York City. They're like traditional fundraisers–all they lack is a
candidate.

While people close to Clinton caution that no final decisions have been
made, they say the former secretary of state has shifted her focus from
public events and paid speeches to private conversations about the guts of
a campaign–messaging, staff, money. Her goal, they say, is to launch with a
fully formed political operation.

That would be difficult for any candidate, but that's particularly so for
one with the last name Clinton. Unlike President Barack Obama, who's known
for his tight circle of friends and advisers, the Clinton universe is a
sprawling international club of foreign dignitaries, Hollywood stars and
moguls, former administration officials and Wall Street executives. The
vastness worries some supporters, who fret that the hordes of people who
consider themselves close to the Clintons could complicate strategy. They
want to avoid a campaign besieged by unsolicited advice, competing
interests, and fierce rivalries. It's not so much a nightmare as a
flashback to the 2008 primary.

Within months of Clinton leaving the State Department in 2013, four outside
groups declared themselves devoted to her potential candidacy and formed a
sort of campaign-in-waiting, each with its own fiefdom. Priorities USA
Action, the big-money super-PAC, plans to handle paid media. Emily's List,
a group that backs the campaigns of Democratic women who support abortion
rights, started Madam President as an early effort to assess voter views on
the idea of a female president. Correct the Record, founded by Clinton
backer David Brock, has established itself as the research arm, publicly
defending her from Republican attacks. And Ready for Hillary, which has a
list of 3 million supporters to sell her campaign if she gets in the race,
is the base camp for activists.

"I felt like the rationale of grassroots support and building lists is a
really important lesson she learned from the last go-round," said Jennifer
Selendy, a litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis in New York, who donated
$25,000 to Ready for Hillary. "If she gets into the race, I'm sure I will
contribute."

While the groups have tried to define separate missions, there's some
overlap, including among major donors whose checks come with a fair number
of opinions.

Already, Clinton's circle is engaged in an internal debate over when she
should formally announce her candidacy. Some argue that sooner is better,
allowing her to maximize the time her campaign and supportive super-PACs
have to raise money for what's expected to be at least a $1 billion
enterprise. Others–friends, mostly–say Clinton should take her time because
the moment she announces she'll be pounded with Republican attacks. Why
wear the "Hit Me" sign any sooner than necessary?

In the meantime, Clinton emissaries are quietly reaching out to possible
staffers. And while political strategists in Washington have not quite
started looking for housing in White Plains, N.Y.–a city not far from the
Clinton home in Chappaqua, and therefore a potential headquarters
location–they've begun speculating on the merits of living in New York City
versus the suburbs.

Several Clintonites are being eyed for senior positions. Robby Mook, who
managed the campaign of longtime Clinton fundraiser and Virginia Governor
Terry McAuliffe, is being considered as campaign manager. That possibility
was underscored by a preliminary strike against him from an opposing camp:
the leak of his private messages from a 150-member "Mook Mafia" email list
he ran with another Democratic operative.

Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee, is another name mentioned by people close to Clinton for
campaign manager or another top position. White House counselor John
Podesta, a former chief of staff during President Bill Clinton's
administration, is on any short list. "If she runs, as I hope she will, I
will do whatever she asks me to do," he told Bloomberg's Al Hunt in an
interview on Charlie Rose. "I talk to her from time to time."

With the midterm elections over, Clinton's path to harness the Democratic
Party is clear–so far, no serious 2016 primary challengers are on the
horizon. Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who lacks the campaign skills
and machine of the Clintons, opened an exploratory committee this week. A
number of Obama's top aides have joined the organizations that will become
part of her campaign apparatus, and at least a few top officials who
refused to back her eight years ago have already endorsed her candidacy.
“I’m frequently introduced as the highest-ranking woman in U.S. office; I’d
like to give up that title. And soon,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
who resisted endorsing Clinton in 2008, told a cheering crowd in San
Francisco last month.

The various components of the campaign-in-waiting now must decide their
next steps, including whether to continue to exist.

Priorities USA Action officials are beginning to court big check-writers in
one-on-one visits. The super-PAC says it won't formally accept donations
until Clinton announces. "We played a critical role in helping elect a
Democratic president in 2012 and we look forward to doing the same in
2016," said Peter Kauffmann, a spokesman for the organization.

Ready for Hillary was designed to be different. Instead of hoarding piles
of cash to unleash in a barrage of television ads, this group has existed
solely to cultivate a vast base of small donors for Clinton. It has spent
nearly all of the $10 million it raised since two Clinton lifers set it up
in January 2013. Once Clinton announces, Ready for Hillary plans to lease
its list of supporters to the campaign and is likely to dissolve. No matter
its future, Ready for Hillary served another purpose–locking down
operatives and showing off Clinton's dominance to potential rivals. The
group also became a clearinghouse for surrogates such as Senators Mark
Warner of Virginia, Chuck Schumer of New York, and Claire McCaskill of
Missouri.

"For people wondering when we're done, we're done if and when she runs,"
said Tracy Sefl, an adviser to the group. "Right now, we're going to keep
doing the work and we're thrilled with what we're accomplishing."

*Business Insider: “Hillary Clinton Praised Obama's Big Immigration Speech”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-just-fully-endorsed-obamas-immigration-order-2014-11>*

By Colin Campbell

November 20, 2014, 9:09 p.m. EST

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton strongly endorsed
President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration reform minutes
after his speech concluded Thursday night.

"I support the president's decision to begin fixing our broken immigration
system and focus finite resources on deporting felons rather than
families," Clinton said in a statement.

Clinton had previously avoided weighing in on the issue as it became
apparent the Obama planned to take executive action.

In her reaction to the president's remarks, Clinton agreed with Obama's
claim House Republicans forced him to unilaterally address immigration
reform. The Senate, which is currently controlled by Democrats, previously
passed an immigration bill that stalled in the lower legislative chamber.

"I was hopeful that the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would
spur the House of Representatives to act, but they refused even to advance
an alternative. Their abdication of responsibility paved the way for this
executive action, which follows established precedent from Presidents of
both parties going back many decades. But, only Congress can finish the job
by passing permanent bipartisan reform that keeps families together,"
Clinton continued.

Clinton further urged the American public to take an even-keeled approach
to the hot-button issue.

"Our disagreements on this important issue may grow heated at times, but I
am confident that people of good will and good faith can yet find common
ground. We should never forget that we're not discussing abstract
statistics  we're talking about real families with real experiences. We're
talking about parents lying awake at night afraid of a knock on the door
that could tear their families apart, people who love this country, work
hard, and want nothing more than a chance to contribute to the community
and build better lives for themselves and their children," she said.

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton: GOP ‘abdication’ forced Obama’s hand on
immigration”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-gop-abdication-forced-obamas-hand-immigration>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

November 20, 2014, 10:07 p.m. EST

In a rare public statement, Hillary Clinton said she supports President
Obama’s new executive action on immigration, lamenting that Republicans
forced his hand.

“I support the president’s decision to begin fixing our broken immigration
system and focus finite resources on deporting felons rather than
families,” the former secretary of state and likely presidential candidate
said Thursday evening. “I was hopeful that the bipartisan bill passed by
the Senate in 2013 would spur the House of Representatives to act, but they
refused even to advance an alternative. Their abdication of responsibility
paved the way for this executive action.”

Republicans have called the action a dangerous usurpation of executive
authority. But Clinton, like her husband, said she thinks Obama’s move
follows “established precedent from Presidents of both parties going back
many decades.”

Obama’s policy is expected to temporarily spare up to 5 million
undocumented immigrants from deportation. The president announced the plan
in a speech Thursday night, saying many immigrants could finally “come out
of the shadows and get right with the law.”

Clinton, like Obama, said Congress must “finish the job by passing
permanent bipartisan reform.” That should both keep families together and
protect the border, she added.

“We should never forget that we’re not discussing abstract statistics –
we’re talking about real families with real experiences. We’re talking
about parents lying awake at night afraid of a knock on the door that could
tear their families apart,” Clinton said.

Like most Democrats, Clinton has long supported immigration reform, and was
in the White House when her husband took his own executive actions
enforcing immigration laws. In the Senate, she voted in favor of overhaul
supported by President Bush that ultimately failed.

During her 2008 presidential campaign, however, Clinton ran into some
trouble when she waffled on her position on giving drivers licenses to
undocumented immigrants. This year, she’s been confronted and heckled by
DREAMers, young undocumented immigrants, at several events.

The fact that Clinton even put out a statement at all is notable. Since
stepping down as secretary of state, she has kept a low profile and avoided
weighing in on issues of the day unless asked about them – and sometimes
even then dodging. She has been criticized, for instance, for not taking a
stance on the Keystone XL pipeline and waiting to speak out on the events
in Ferguson.

The quick, strong, and proactive response to Obama’s speech Thursday is
usual, and could signal a new paradigm as she gets closer to a potential
campaign.

*The Hill: “House Oversight chairman to put spotlight on Clinton, Benghazi”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/house/224902-chaffetz-plans-spotlight-on-clinton-benghazi#.VG5bS7rDkgI.twitter>*

By Cristina Marcos

November 20, 2014, 4:15 p.m. EST

The incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee plans to put the spotlight on Hillary Clinton.

In an interview with The Hill on Thursday in his Capitol Hill office, Rep.
Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) set out a broad agenda that will include hearings
on embassy security in light of the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead.

“Secretary Clinton created a fiasco. And we're going to investigate it,”
Chaffetz said of the former secretary of State.

Benghazi is now under the jurisdiction of a House select committee, but
Chaffetz indicated it is one of several issues spearheaded by outgoing
Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) that his panel will continue to
monitor — even as Clinton is expected to prepare for a 2016 White House bid.

“Four years of her reign at State is something that we're still going to
have to clean up and we have to address. We can't just ignore it,” Chaffetz
said.

Chaffetz said probes of the Secret Service, the Justice Department's “Fast
and Furious” gun-tracing program and the Internal Revenue Service that
began under Issa will be ongoing.

“There are investigations, obviously, that will continue,” Chaffetz said.

Chaffetz suggested his inaugural hearing as chairman could be on the
comments from ObamaCare consultant Jonathan Gruber that the healthcare law
passed because of voter “stupidity.”

But he's also “leaving open the possibility” to a hearing early in his term
on President Obama's unilateral action to change immigration laws.

“It is on everybody's radar screen. I don't know if we would necessarily
lead out on it, but we might,” Chaffetz said. “There are bigger, broader
issues with immigration and securing the border that I'm sure we will dive
into. No doubt about it.”

Chaffetz said he thinks he can work effectively with Democrats and that he
wants to avoid overtly personal confrontations that marred Issa’s
reputation.

“I don't want things to get personal,” Chaffetz said. “I want to be fair.
I'm not going to let up on my tenacity or my passion on getting to the
truth, but I ultimately want to be fair.”

Chaffetz wants to hold hearings on the number of federal workers on paid
administrative leave, something he thinks can be a bipartisan issue.

He cited an example of an Environmental Protection Agency employee who was
placed on paid leave — but not fired — after he was caught viewing porn on
his computer for several hours a day.

“I can guarantee you we're going to have a hearing about the fact that
there are more than 4,000 people on paid administrative leave. Four
thousand. We pay these people. It's like a paid vacation. That's not a
partisan issue,” Chaffetz said.

Still other potential hearings on Chaffetz's list would be on the use of
information technology across the federal government, public lands, renewal
of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and postal reform.

While Democrats remain skeptical that Chaffetz will adhere to pledges to
take a different approach than Issa, the new chairman thinks he can improve
relations with the other sie of the aisle.

For one, Chaffetz said he'll try to be more judicious with subpoenas. Issa
came under criticism for issuing more than 100 subpoenas without the
sign-off from the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings
(D-Md.). At one hearing earlier this year, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen
insisted the subpoena was unnecessary given that he had willingly appeared
before the House Ways and Means Committee just days earlier.

So far, Chaffetz hasn't heard from the Obama administration since winning
the Oversight gavel apart from a congratulatory email from the White House
Office of Legislative Affairs.

But starting in January, they'll likely be at odds over the committee's
investigations.

For his part, Chaffetz said he hopes he won't even have to issue a single
subpoena during his tenure as chairman.

“I hope to never issue one. It's more dependent on the White House than it
is on me,” Chaffetz said. “Subpoenas, in my mind, are a last resort.”

But Chaffetz warned he would subpoena documents or witnesses if it appears
there's no other way to access them.

“If they are as open and transparent as they claim, I'll never have to
issue one,” Chaffetz said. “But if they're going to play games and hide the
documents, then we're going to start issuing subpoenas.”

*The New Republic: “Sherrod Brown Should Challenge Hillary Clinton for
President”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120351/sherrod-brown-president-2016-he-should-challenge-hillary-clinton>*

By Michael Kazin

November 20, 2014

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, I think Sherrod Brown should run for
president. I know that, barring a debilitating health problem or a horrible
scandal, Hillary Clinton is likely to capture the Democratic nomination. I
realize too that Brown, the senior senator from Ohio, has never hinted that
he may be tempted to challenge her. “I’m really happy where I am,” he told
Chris Matthews last winter, when the MSNBC’s paragon of impatience urged
him to run.

Yet, for progressive Democrats, Brown would be a nearly perfect nominee.
During his two decades in the House and Senate, he has taken strong and
articulate stands on every issue which matters to the party’s broad, if
currently dispirited, liberal base. When George W. Bush was in office and
riding high, Brown opposed both his invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act.
He has long been a staunch supporter of abortion rights and gay marriage,
and is married to Connie Schultz, a feminist author who writes a nationally
syndicated column.

Brown’s true mission, however, is economic: He wants to boost the
well-being of working Americans by any means necessary. Brown has been
talking and legislating about how to accomplish it for years before
Elizabeth Warren left Harvard for the Capitol. During Obama’s first term,
he advocated a larger stimulus package, called for re-enacting the
Glass-Steagall Act to rein in big banks, and stumped for comprehensive
immigration reform. He champions the rights of unions and the power of the
National Labor Relations Board and criticizes unregulated “free trade” for
destroying manufacturing jobs at home. He also led the charge among Senate
Democrats that pressured Obama to drop his plan to appoint Larry Summers to
head the Federal Reserve and appoint Janet Yellen instead.

On his lapel, Brown wears a canary pin to honor the workers’ movement that
“gave us all food safety laws, civil rights, rights for the disabled,
pensions and the minimum wage.” Like the canaries which miners once took
with them into the pits to warn them of toxic gas, the pin symbolizes the
need to stay on guard against any employers and politicians who threaten
those gains.

There are other Democrats—Warren is the best known—who also skillfully
combine a politics of economic populism with a commitment to gender
equality and civil liberties. But only Brown represents a populous swing
state that has voted for the victor in every presidential election since
1960. In both his Senate races, Brown faced well-known and well-financed
Republican opponents—and creamed them. In 2006, his unexpected 12-point
margin over Mike DeWine was aided, in part, by the anti-Bush wave that gave
Democrats control of Congress. Still, DeWine was a two-term incumbent who
had been elected previously by landslides. In 2012, Brown faced Josh
Mandel, the popular young state Treasurer. After what became that cycle’s
most expensive Senate race, Brown won by six points. He outpolled Barack
Obama in Ohio by over 160,000 votes.

Brown’s success, like that of many politicians who are popular in swing
states, relies, in part, on charm. He relishes going to hundreds of town
meetings around the state, where he answers any question thrown at him.
Whether in public or talking to an interviewer in his office, he comes off
as relaxed, witty, curious, and rhetoric-free. Two years ago, when I spoke
with him in Washington, we spent so much time talking and laughing about
his Ohio predecessors—who included the formidable Mark Hanna, the
Republican who, in 1896, pioneered the big-money, mass media national
campaign—that we barely had enough time to talk about Brown’s career and
policies. I have never enjoyed myself so much with any politician,
particularly one who was, at the time, fighting to keep his seat.

But Brown earns his popularity by refusing to trim his progressive faith or
apologize for it. “If you remember who you are,” he told me, “you don’t
have to move to the center, wherever the center happens to be at any
moment.” He keeps insisting that America will not become a decent society
unless the labor movement regains some of its strength and corporations
lose a good deal of their power over campaigns and politicians.

Last summer, George Will paid Brown a kind of tribute. “He looks, sounds
and acts like a real, as opposed to faculty club, leftist,” wrote Will in a
rare moment when he put his irony, if not his hauteur, aside. “Although he
is a Yale graduate, he has the rumpled look and hoarse voice of someone who
spent last night on Paris barricades, exhorting les miserables to chuck
cobblestones at the forces defending property.” Will did have a point when
he contrasted Sherrod Brown’s good-natured, steadfast populism with Hillary
Clinton’s “risk-averse careerism” and “joyless plod” toward the Democratic
nomination.

If nothing else, Sherrod Brown could help push the plight of “the
struggling middle class”—which is really composed of men and women who work
for wages or a mediocre salary—to the forefront of the Democratic primary
campaign, where it deserves to be. And no journalist could accuse him of
altering his views to do so. According to exit polls from the midterm
election, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe their government favors
the wealthy. Senator Brown must be less “happy” now when he contemplates
spending the next two years objecting again and again to the deeds of the
new Republican majority. Why shouldn’t he speak liberal truths to power—in
his party and the nation—instead?

*MSNBC: “Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley present first 2016 challenges for
Clinton”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jim-webb-martin-omalley-present-first-2016-challenges-clinton>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald and Jane C. Timm

November 20, 2014, 1:22 p.m. EST

Two potential challengers to Hillary Clinton, former Sen. Jim Webb and
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have clearly signaled their intent to enter
the 2016 campaign.

Webb launched an exploratory committee late Wednesday to consider a 2016
run. The committee gives him the ability to fundraise, spend, and organize
like a presidential campaign, without officially declaring just yet.

The popular ex-senator from Virginia has moderate, anti-war credentials
that might ring true with liberals and moderates voters sick of gridlock
and overseas military operations.

“Over the past few months, thousands of concerned Americans across the
political spectrum have asked me to run for president,” Webb said in a
video posted to his website. “A constant theme runs through these requests.
Americans want positive, visionary leadership that they can trust.”

Meanwhile, outgoing Maryland Gov. O’Malley has hired a former adviser to
Hillary Clinton to lead policy development at his political action
committee. O’Malley has only two more months left in office in Annapolis,
but his Washington-based O’Say Can You See PAC is adding staff. One major
addition is Sarah Miller, who served on the policy team of Hillary
Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and was a close aide to longtime
Clinton confidant John Podesta at the Center for American Progress, a
leading liberal think tank.

At the Center for American Progress, Miller served as a speechwriter and
policy adviser to Podesta, who founded the think tank before moving to the
White House as counselor to President Obama late last year. Podesta served
as Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff and will likely hold a very
senior role in another Clinton presidential campaign. After CAP, Miller
joined the Treasury Department, but has remained close to Podesta.

O’Malley, who says he is seriously considering a presidential bid, has a
policy record in Maryland that could excite progressives. And lately, he’s
been vocal in taking the liberal positions on issues of the day. He came
out for net neutrality just before President Obama made his own
announcement on the matter, and called on Congress to vote down the
Keystone XL pipeline ahead of a much-watched vote this week.

On the other hand, Webb has cast himself as an economic populist. He has
touted his varied credentials—eight years of active duty military,
including deployment in Vietnam, five years at the Pentagon mostly as
Assistant Secretary of Defense and Assistant Secretary of the Navy, four
years working behind the scenes in Congress, and six years in Congress. His
anti-interventionist views will differentiate him from Clinton, who voted
for the war in Iraq while in the Senate and encouraged the Obama
administration’s intervention in Libya.

But credentials aside, few Americans even know Webb’s name and few are
talking about his candidacy for president: in a Washington Post/ABC News
poll from June, he garnered support from only 2% of Democrats.

At an event in September, Webb acknowledged his likely opponent, Hillary
Clinton.

“I’m not here to undermine her,” Webb said. “I’m here just to explain where
my concerns are as someone whose been involved in military and foreign
policy all of my life.”

*MSNBC column: Krystal Ball: “Is Jim Webb 2016’s Barack Obama?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jim-webb-2016s-barack-obama>*

By Krystal Ball

November 20, 2014, 3:58 p.m. EST

Just when we thought the 2016 Democratic presidential primary would turn
into a bloodless coronation of Hillary Clinton, the race gets a whole lot
more interesting. Jim Webb, former Virginia Democratic senator and
Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, just announced he’s
forming a presidential exploratory committee. Webb writes:

“I’d like to take a few minutes of your time to ask you to consider the
most important question facing America today: Is it possible that our next
President could actually lay out a vision for the country, and create an
environment where leaders from both parties and from all philosophies would
feel compelled to work together for the good of the country, despite all of
the money and political pressure that now demands they disagree?”

The letter doesn’t mention Hillary Clinton, but Webb’s background,
rhetoric, and persona stands in stark contrast to the presumed Democratic
frontrunner. On issues of national security and economic justice, Webb
could be the credible challenger to Secretary Clinton that some Democrats
have been looking for.

While Clinton is hawkish and famously supported President George W. Bush’s
Iraq War, Jim Webb has been a forceful and credible non-interventionist
voice. While Clinton has attempted to shift her rhetoric to match the
current mood of economic populism, Webb has a long track record of focusing
on poverty, inequality, and economic justice. But perhaps more than
anything, Webb’s very persona stands in direct opposition to that of
Hillary Clinton.

In 2006, at a time when Hillary Clinton was serving in the Senate and
considering whether or not to renounce her support for the Iraq War, Jim
Webb was stumping for a Senate seat  in combat boots as an ode to his son
who was serving in the military there. Before Webb’s opponent, George
Allen, made “macaca” a household word, Webb was making a name for himself
in Virginia politics based on his combination of decorated military service
and opposition to the Iraq War.

Webb’s consistent and principled opposition led to a memorably
uncomfortable exchange with then-President George W. Bush shortly after
Webb’s election. At a White House reception for incoming Senate freshmen,
Bush tracked Webb down and asked him: “How’s your boy?” To which Webb
replied: “I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President.” Bush tried
again: “That’s not what I asked you. How’s your boy?” “That’s between me
and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said ending the conversation.

Webb has since stuck to his guns as a non-interventionist, opposing U.S.
involvement in Libya and Syria. If Americans are afraid of being drawn back
into Iraq or being goaded by ISIS into another full-scale military
conflict, Webb’s anti-war stance – combined with his deep knowledge and
credibility as a military veteran – could be a potent challenge to
Clinton’s hawkishness.

Economic populism could provide another area of potential vulnerability for
Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state has attempted to match her
rhetoric to the Democratic mood of the day by highlighting inequality and
advocating for a minimum wage increase. But it hasn’t stopped criticism of
her continued coziness with Wall Street, including the generous
compensation she has received for speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton has
yet to stake out a position at odds with the corporate and Wall Street
executives who are expected to fund her campaign.

Webb, on the other hand, has already taken positions that would set him
against the economic elite. In a recent interview with Ryan Lizza of The
New Yorker, Webb pointed out the absurdity of hedge fund managers paying
lower tax rates than wage earners saying: “Fairness says if you’re a
hedge-fund manager or making deals where you’re making hundreds of millions
of dollars and you’re paying capital-gains tax on that, rather than
ordinary income tax, something’s wrong, and people know something’s wrong.”
Webb has also decried the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are
beholden to Wall street financial interests.

Webb’s candidacy could also undercut the supposed promise of Hillary’s
electability. Some have argued that Clinton, given her Arkansas ties and
previous success appealing to white working class voters, would be able to
expand the electoral map and compete in Southern states that were out of
bounds for President Obama. Webb, who is of Scotch-Irish decent and whose
ancestors hail from Appalachia, would likely have the same electoral
appeal. His exploratory letter highlights his concern for both the inner
cities where you “see the stagnation, poverty, crime, and lack of
opportunity that still affects so many African Americans” and the “poorest
counties in America – who happen to be more than 90 percent White, and who
live in the reality that ‘if you’re poor and White you’re out of sight.’”

Most potently, Webb and Hillary Clinton could not be any more different
stylistically. While Clinton seemingly can’t get enough of hobnobbing with
economic elites and cultivating donors, Webb has clear antipathy for the
entire political fundraising process. When he was in the Senate, his
fundraising approach consisted primarily of an occasional letter, penned by
Webb himself explaining his work and asking for donations. If you did see
Webb at political fundraisers, you would likely find him off to the side,
speaking only to those who approached him, rather than working the
wealthiest and most powerful individuals as most other politicians would.

Senator Tim Kaine, who replaced Webb in the Senate, explained to The
Washington Post: “He is not a backslapper. There are different models that
succeed in politics. There’s the hail-fellow-well-met model of
backslapping. That’s not his style.” In all the ways that Hillary is
careful, Webb is direct. In the ways that she’s polished, he’s rough. And
in all the ways that Hillary eagerly embraces the political game, Webb
distances himself from it. But his authenticity could also be a liability:
Webb has no established donor network and no appetite for politics.

Barack Obama showed how a potent combination of outsider status, anti-war
credibility and deep grassroots enthusiasm could propel an insurgent
candidate into a position to win the nomination against the formidable
Clinton political war machine. Despite the lessons of 2008, the nascent
Hillary Clinton campaign seems to have corrected little of its
tone-deafness or overconfidence. At the same time, Clinton is unlikely to
allow her organization to be out-executed the way she was by Obama, who
capitalized on his campaign’s organizational competence and managerial
discipline to win the Democratic nomination.

Though Clinton’s tone-deafness and hubris might still befuddle Hillaryland
in 2016, you can be sure they would have their caucus states organized and
not be asleep at the wheel. And a candidate as fundamentally cautious as
Hillary Clinton is unlikely to have the aforementioned “macaca” moment that
ignited Webb’s unlikely 2006 Senate candidacy against George Allen. 2006
was also a spectacular year for Democrats, when national forces came to
Webb’s aid and made up for his many organizational sins and fundraising
disadvantages.

Webb has never proven he can run the type of campaign organization that
could execute the complex, precinct-by-precinct war it would take to
dislodge Hillary. Nor is he the type of charismatic figure that electrified
the national stage the way Obama did during his 2004 Democratic convention
debut. But as the 2016 field comes together, a combination of factors could
conspire to unleash a type of grassroots firestorm for Webb: disdain for
politics as usual, the unaddressed fury of blue collar white voters, a deep
longing for authenticity, and a likely post-Obama backlash against
transformational, rhetorically charismatic leaders. An Obama-to-Webb
transition isn’t the most natural, but given their shared disdain for
hawkish adventurism and anti-establishment credibility, Webb’s bid for the
coalition of the ascendant is not unreasonable.

However, before getting the politically cynical millennials to knock down
doors for him, Webb will also have to explain to the Democratic base his
positions on gun control, immigration and women’s rights. A 1979 article he
wrote titled “Women Can’t Fight” is tough to square with a Democratic party
that champions women’s empowerment and equality.

Still, for those looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton and hoping
she’ll face a real challenge in the Democratic primary, Jim Webb’s
candidacy will certainly be an interesting one to watch. In his letter
announcing his exploratory committee, Webb writes: “I can assure you that
we will be focusing not on petty politics or how to match a position with a
poll, but on the future of our country and on solutions that will rebuild
and unite us.” Lots of politicians could write those words. Webb is one of
the very few who could write them and actually be believed.

*The Daily Beast: “Hillary Gets a Challenger and He’s a Marine”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/hillary-gets-a-challenger-and-he-s-a-marine.html>*

By David Freedlander

November 20, 2014

[Subtitle:] Jim Webb is officially exploring a 2016 run. Why the former
senator—and former Republican—might be able to reach the Democratic voters
that Clinton can’t.

The typical campaign kickoff video has soft lighting, shots of the
candidate with family or, shaking hands with beaming youngsters, grizzled
farmers, and grateful factory workers while a voice-over runs down
platitudes about saving the nation from the imminent peril that another
election gone wrong will bring.

Jim Webb’s announcement that he’s forming an exploratory committee for a
possible 2016 presidential run had all the slick production of the
instructional video shown before jury duty.

There was Webb, a one-term senator from Virginia, wearing a charcoal gray
suit and a blue button shirt, staring directly into the single camera,
speaking for 14 minutes. He laid out his biography—Vietnam vet, secretary
of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, antiwar Democrat in the U.S. Senate—his
record as a lawmaker, which included criminal-justice reform and a new GI
Bill, and the rationale for his campaign: “A strong majority of Americans
agree that we are at a serious crossroads. In my view the solutions are not
simply political, but those of leadership.” (The text, spread out over
pages, was helpfully posted directly below the video.)

It has all the trappings of a campaign as vanity project, the type of
presidential exploration designed not to excite convention delegates but to
boost a candidate’s name ID before cable-TV bookers. Webb, after all, would
come into a Democratic primary with considerable baggage—never mind that he
would likely be squaring off against Hillary Clinton, the most overwhelming
favorite in an open Democratic primary in history. There is the fact that
Webb used to be a Republican, a point he proudly points to in the video
when he mentions his service in the Reagan administration. Or the fact that
Webb, who decided not to run again after only one term in elective office,
doesn’t seem to have the stomach for the degradations of politics. And the
fact that Webb’s base of support lies among working-class whites, who are a
diminishing constituency in a party made up more and more of liberals,
minorities, and the professional classes. (“What a naïve and stupid thing
to think that Democratic primary voters want,” wrote The Daily Kos in
response to Webb’s kickoff video, calling Webb a hopeless crank and comic
relief in the mold of Herman Cain.)

But veterans of his campaign for Senate and people close to him insist that
Webb is taking a serious look. Webb’s video announcement last night makes
him the first Democrat to officially declare his interest, and as the party
waits for the near-inevitable Clinton kickoff, some Webb supporters say
that is not as inevitable as many pundits believe. And should Clinton jump
in, some in Webb world say they think she is the wrong candidate at a time
when the nation is disgusted with politics as usual and when the declining
prospects of the middle class is the most important issue facing the nation.

“Jim is not a trial-balloon guy. A lot of people send trial balloons up
because they want to see if they have a chance, or if people like them,”
said Steve Jarding, a strategist on Webb’s 2006 run. “That’s not Jim. He
says ‘I have a message and I am going to move that message.’ He challenges
the Democratic Party to say what it stands for.”

Jarding acknowledged that Webb faces long odds—“At this point, you wouldn’t
bet on him”—but noted that his win in what was thought to be deeply
Republican Virginia in 2006, against a popular incumbent, was unlikely as
well.

And he conceded that Webb didn’t have much of a taste for politics, but
suggested that the former senator could be a stand-in for Americans who
don’t have much of a taste for the process either right now.

“Apparently 90 percent of Americans agree with him. They don’t like
politics much these days either. Maybe Americans are willing to look at
someone who does something different from the calculated. He gives those
Americans a voice who say, ‘You know what, they are all crooks and bastards
up there on Capitol Hill and I don’t want to have anything to do with
them.’ I mean, look at that video! With all due respect, it was like
something out of the 1970s. It wasn’t what you would see from an insider
politician.”

On Friday, some of Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporters, who have banded
together under the Ready for Hillary super PAC to raise millions of dollars
and garner millions of email addresses, will gather in Midtown Manhattan to
bask in their successes in preparing the groundwork for her run. Webb has
kept a low profile since leaving the Senate, and will be running for
president “the old-fashioned way,” in the words of one aide—waiting to
announce before trying to gather support.

And Clinton, his aides insist, is a non-factor.

“It ain’t about Hillary,” said Mudcat Saunders, a longtime Virginia
strategist who worked on Webb’s Senate campaign. “It’s about bring the
American dream to the forefront once again for working people and small
business. The working people and small business—they haven’t had any
representation in years. And they know it.

“Americans want to do something about this coin-operated government.”

The early line on Webb had been that he would be challenging Clinton from
the right. It is a reasonable assumption, considering his roots in the
Republican Party, in the Marines, and his proud Scots-Irish roots. But
Webb’s aides insist it isn’t true. He is to the left of Hillary on foreign
intervention, and is more populist on economic matters as well, talking
about not just curbing the power of big banks but about an inequality
agenda that goes beyond raising taxes and the minimum wage in order to help
lower middle-class families gain more of a foothold. They see him bringing
working-class whites and Southerners into the fold in a way that no other
Democrat could.

“He talks about taking the Democratic Party back to its populist roots,”
said Jessica Vandenberg, a longtime political operative who just moved back
to her native Iowa and is helping lay the groundwork for the Webb campaign
in that first-in-the-nation caucus state. “There is a debate about the
direction of the Democratic Party, and it is good to have that debate.”

*National Journal: “MoveOn Warns Clinton: Back Keystone, Lose Your Base”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/moveon-warns-clinton-back-keystone-lose-your-base-20141120?ref=t.co&mrefid=walkingheader>*

By Ben Geman

November 20, 2014

[Subtitle:] The controversial oil-sands pipeline is cropping up in the
nascent 2016 battle for the White House.

The progressive group MoveOn.org is pressing Hillary Clinton to come out
against the Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline, warning that she could lose
Democratic voters if she doesn't take a stand against the project.

"Hillary Clinton's refusal to take a position raises the possibility that
she is worse on climate change than 80 percent of the incoming Senate's
Democratic Caucus," said Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org
Civic Action.

She warned: "If she's considering a run for president and wants the support
of the party's base, Hillary Clinton should clarify that she opposes this
dirty and dangerous pipeline."

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner if she decides to enter the White
House race, has repeatedly declined to offer an opinion on Keystone.

"I can't really talk about it because I was in the office that has primary
responsibility for making the decision. I don't want to inject myself into
what is a continuing process or to in any way undermine my successor as he
tries to make this decision," she said at an event in Canada last month,
referring to John Kerry, who followed Clinton as secretary of State.

But Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity,
said there's no formal restriction preventing Clinton from offering an
opinion on the pipeline. "She's a private citizen now," said Snape, whose
group opposes Keystone. "Nothing in Clinton's secretary of State job would
prevent her from taking a policy position at this point."

The State Department is heading the federal review of the project, but the
final decision is expected to come from the West Wing.

Polling shows that Democrats are divided over Keystone. A Pew Research
Center poll released Nov. 12 showed that 43 percent of Democrats surveyed
currently favor construction, compared with 54 percent in March of 2013.
Overall, Pew's survey found that 59 percent of the public supports the
project.

In contrast to Clinton, outgoing Maryland governor and potential 2016
Democratic White House candidate Martin O'Malley is bashing the pipeline.
"It's time to reject the either/or and smallball choices facing us on
energy. I hope the Senate rejects #KeystoneXL--it's too much carbon
dioxide, and not nearly enough jobs (only about 50 jobs permanent once
construction is finished)," he said on Facebook ahead of a Senate vote on
the project earlier this week.

Among the other potential 2016 challengers to Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders
of Vermont strongly opposes Keystone. But former Virginia Democratic Sen.
Jim Webb, who has just announced an exploratory committee for a White House
run, voted in favor of the pipeline in 2012.

The MoveOn.org statement comes two days after legislation to approve
TransCanada's pipeline, which would bring crude oil from Canadian oil-sands
projects to Gulf Coast refineries, failed by a single vote in the Senate.
Thirty-nine Democrats and two independents aligned with their caucus
(Sanders and Sen. Angus King) voted against the bill Tuesday, while 14
Democrats supported it.

Bill McKibben, a prominent climate-change activist and leading Keystone
foe, supported MoveOn.org's push to get Clinton to take a stand.

*Calendar:*

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

·  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>
)

·  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>
)