Subject: Correct The Record Saturday December 6, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:11:51 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Saturday December 6, 2014 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Fox Tries To
Shoot Down Latest Benghazi Report To Justify Select Committee Hearing”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/05/fox-tries-to-shoot-down-latest-benghazi-report/201784>*

“Fox News originally ignored a House GOP report debunking many of its
Benghazi myths but is now attacking the report's credibility to promote the
need for more Benghazi Select Committee hearings.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton sticks with President Obama on Israel”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-israel-113360.html>*

[Subtitle:] “In appearance with a pro-Israel donor, she defends the White
House on Iran talks.”

*Wall Street Journal: “Iran Talks Likely to Figure in Any Hillary Clinton
2016 Bid”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-talks-likely-to-figure-in-any-hillary-clinton-2016-bid-1417823608>*

“Interviewed at the event by a political supporter, Haim Saban, Mrs.
Clinton said the U.S. mustn’t be overly willing to reach a deal with Iran.
‘I remain strongly of the view that no deal is better than a bad deal,’ she
said. Still, she said the negotiations are an important step.”

*Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier: “Harkin: Clinton shouldn't take Iowa for
granted”
<http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/harkin-clinton-shouldn-t-take-iowa-for-granted/article_5b2ef690-afdc-5bd6-8ef0-4c1f0eff42f8.html>*

“The Iowa Democrat, who believes it’s a 50-50 proposition whether the
former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state seeks the
nomination, said that if Clinton runs she won’t have the field to herself.”

*Washington Post blog: PostPartisan: Ed Rogers: “The Insiders: Who is
Hillary kidding?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/12/05/the-insiders-who-is-hillary-kidding/>*

“Is Clinton really trying to seem reluctant, to position herself as the
candidate who doesn’t really want to run but will sacrifice herself for the
good of our country? Please.”

*CNN opinion: Gloria Berger: “Hillary and Jeb: How the deciders decide”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/opinion/borger-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-decide/index.html>*

“Lost amidst the predictable clutter of the ‘will-he-or won't-she’
questions about whether Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton will actually run for
the presidency is an unexpected development: a hint of authenticity.”

*U.S. News & World Report blog: The Run 2016: “Warren Liberals Eye Webb to
Pressure Hillary”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/12/05/elizabeth-warren-liberals-eye-jim-webb-to-pressure-hillary-clinton>*

“The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has deployed one of its top
organizers to the early primary state of New Hampshire to ask elected
officials and political leaders there to pressure all candidates to take
stands on Warren's agenda – one that includes expanding Social Security
benefits, reforming the way Wall Street banks operate and making college
more affordable.”

*New York Times: “Hillary Clinton’s History as First Lady: Powerful, but
Not Always Deft”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/politics/hillary-clintons-history-as-first-lady-powerful-but-not-always-deft.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0>*

"These were formative years for Mrs. Clinton, a time of daring and hubris,
a time when she evolved from that headstrong young lawyer so impressed with
the man she would marry into a political figure in her own right."

*Yahoo: “Is it already too late for a Democrat to derail Hillary Clinton in
2016?”
<http://news.yahoo.com/is-it-already-too-late-for-a-democrat-to-derail-hillary-clinton-in-2016-181014036.html>*

“The bottom line is that Obama didn’t ‘come out of nowhere’ in 2008 — but
in 2016, Webb, Sanders and O’Malley would have to. So far, only Warren is
on the map.”

*Articles:*

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Fox Tries To
Shoot Down Latest Benghazi Report To Justify Select Committee Hearing”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/05/fox-tries-to-shoot-down-latest-benghazi-report/201784>*

By Ellie Sandmeyer

December 5, 2014, 4:59 p.m. EST

Fox News originally ignored a House GOP report debunking many of its
Benghazi myths but is now attacking the report's credibility to promote the
need for more Benghazi Select Committee hearings.

In November, the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republicans,
released the results of a lengthy investigation that "debunk[ed] a series
of persistent allegations" perpetuated by conservative media outlets about
the events and culpability surrounding the 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic
facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report reaffirmed the findings of
several previous investigations and once again determined that "there was
no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed
opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly
shipping arms from Libya to Syria."

Fox News remained mostly silent in the wake of the report's publication,
giving the report only cursory coverage while flagship news program Fox
News Sunday ignored it entirely. The network's lack of coverage earned
condemnation from CNN media critic Brian Stelter and even Fox's own media
analyst, Howard Kurtz. The absence of coverage stood in stark contrast
toFox's exhaustive focus on the formation of a select committee to
investigate Benghazi in June, when the network devoted at least 225
segments to the select committee over a mere two-week span.

With another Benghazi Select Committee hearing scheduled for December 10,
Fox has changed its approach from silence to overt attempts to undermine
the GOP report's credibility.

Bret Baier, host of Fox's Special Report, claimed on December 3 that "many"
believe the House Intelligence Committee's Benghazi report "went soft on
the Obama administration and was filled inaccuracies" and emphasized the
further investigation by the Benghazi Select Committee. To bolster this
allegation, investigative reporter Catherine Herridge noted the "eyewitness
accounts" of Kris Paronto and John Tiegen, who, according to Herridge, "say
there was an intelligence failure. They were directly warned in late August
a strike was likely, yet no Defense Department assets were available on the
September 11th anniversary."

Special Report's December 3 panel went to further lengths to undermine the
Intelligence Committee report as Baier, Fox News contributor Charles
Krauthammer, The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, and The Hill's A. B.
Stoddard suggested that the investigation was insufficient.

But Fox's latest attempts at subverting the committee report amount to
nothing more than highlighting a smattering of Republican lawmakers who
claim to remember events occurring differently than they were laid out in
the final report. In a December 5 article for FoxNews.com, Herridge
reported that newly declassified testimony contained the statements of
members of Congress recalling that former CIA director David Petraeus
connected the Benghazi attack to the protests against an anti-Muslim
YouTube video in an off-the-record coffee meeting two days after the attack:

“If the lawmakers' recollection is accurate, that means Petraeus' brief on
Sept. 14, 2012, was instead in line with the White House, and
then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's State Department. It was a State
Department press release at 10:07 p.m. ET, before the attack was even over,
that first made the link to the obscure anti-Islam video. The newly
declassified testimony says $70,000 was spent on advertising in Pakistan,
denouncing the anti-Muslim film.

“During this testimony, GOP Rep. Jeff Miller questioned Petraeus' original
testimony, stating the former CIA director ‘even went so far as to say that
it had been put into Arabic language and then was put on this TV station,
this cleric's TV station. I mean, [Petraeus] drove that in pretty hard when
he was in here. ‘

“Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., added ‘it was said in here a little bit
earlier that the CIA never said Benghazi was part of a Cairo protest and of
the video. And we were given just the opposite message by the Director of
the CIA on the [September] 14th [2012.]’

“Rogers noted there was no transcript for the brief, only staff notes, but
after the Petraeus incident in September 2012, the practice was changed to
always run a transcript on the briefings. The Sept. 14, 2012, brief was a
coffee meeting with members.”

USA Today reported that the Fox-promoted Select Committee may cost $1.5
million this year, despite numerous other independent investigations
finding no wrongdoing with relation to the events in Benghazi.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton sticks with President Obama on Israel”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-israel-113360.html>*

By Katie Glueck

December 5, 2014, 10:13 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] In appearance with a pro-Israel donor, she defends the White
House on Iran talks.

Hillary Clinton had several opportunities to distance herself from the
Obama administration during an appearance Friday before a heavily
pro-Israel crowd, but she didn’t take them.

Instead, she defended President Barack Obama’s dealings with the Jewish
state at a time of tense U.S.-Israel relations, insisting the White House
is committed to Israel’s security and supporting America’s nuclear talks
with Iran.

The former secretary of state and likely 2016 Democratic presidential
contender was speaking at the Saban Forum, an event hosted by the Brookings
Institution and named for billionaire and Democratic mega-donor Haim Saban.
She offered her most extensive Israel-related comments since criticizing
the president’s foreign policy in a summer interview with The Atlantic that
caused a political maelstrom.

Ahead of her remarks, some attendees chattered over cocktails about their
disagreements with the White House, especially on its decision to pursue
the negotiations with Tehran. But, during a half-hour conversation onstage
with Saban, Clinton signaled little daylight with the administration.

“If you look at the close cooperation, and what this administration and the
Congress over the last six years has done with respect to Israel’s
security, it’s quite extraordinary,” she said, pointing to funding for
military equipment and strategic consultations. “Nobody can argue with the
commitment of this administration to Israel’s security, and that has to
continue, it has to deepen regardless of the political back-and-forth.”

Clinton has yet to say if whether she will launch a second campaign for
president — an announcement is expected early next year — but Republicans
already have been scrutinizing her tenure at Foggy Bottom during Obama’s
first term. Many in the GOP accuse Obama of being insufficiently supportive
of Israel, and some have tried to link Clinton to Obama’s foreign policy
missteps.

In the interview with The Atlantic, published in August, Clinton questioned
the White House’s self-described foreign policy doctrine of “Don’t do
stupid sh—,” as well as its approach to the bloodshed in Syria, among other
criticisms. Her remarks prompted blowback from people close to the
administration. Some were unhappy with the timing of her comments, which
came as the president faced a slew of international crises. Clinton
eventually called the president to patch things over.

Had she decided Friday to issue more criticisms, she could have risked
another flurry of anger, especially amid the White House’s efforts to keep
the talks with Iran on track. World powers, including the United States,
have extended the negotiations with the Islamic Republic until the summer.

Israel views a nuclear weapon-armed Iran as an existential threat, and it
doesn’t believe Iran’s assurances that its nuclear program is peaceful.

As secretary of state, Clinton was deeply involved in laying the groundwork
for the negotiations (she credited sanctions as helping bring the Iranians
to the table). On Friday, she sought to reassure the crowd that “no deal is
better than a bad deal,” and that “all options” must remain “on the table”
in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

But, in at times hawkish language, she defended the path the White House
has taken with Tehran so far, even as she also painted Iran as a deeply
destabilizing force in the Middle East. She also indicated support for the
extension of talks, saying it’s “very important” to “try to see if we can
reach an agreement in line with our requirements.”

“My bottom line is a deal that verifiably closes all of Iran’s pathways to
nuclear weapons,” she said. “The key there is ‘verifiably’ and ‘all.’”

Clinton was also asked about Benjamin Netanyahu, the conservative prime
minister of Israel, with whom Obama has a particularly fraught
relationship. In The Atlantic, Clinton offered sympathetic words for
Netanyahu, but on Friday, she avoided that, instead downplaying Israel’s
disagreements with the administration.

“At times there are going to be differences,” she said. “And I don’t think
it’s personal. I think it is a different perspective about, sometimes what
we think is best for our friends may not be what our friends think is best
for them. When we say that, I don’t believe that’s disrespectful or
rupturing the relationship. I think that’s an honest relationship. That’s
the kind of friend I want. I want people to say that to me, I want to be
able to say that back. I think that’s a broader, more accurate way to look
at the relationship right now.”

She also reiterated her support for a two-state solution to resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, noting that goal was pursued when her
husband, Bill Clinton, was president, as well as in the Bush and Obama
administrations.

The absence of negotiations “leaves a vacuum that gets filled by…bad
actors, threats…[that are] not good for Israel and not good for the
Palestinians,” she said. “So I think the efforts undertaken in the last
several years, when I was secretary [and under] Secretary [John] Kerry are
very much in the interests of Israel and in the interests of the
Palestinians.”

Asked about her biggest regrets while at the State Department, Clinton
named several, including the administration’s decision not to do more to
boost the pro-democracy protests in Iran in 2009, something she discussed
in her recent memoir, “Hard Choices.”

The event drew lawmakers and former lawmakers, including House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), whose district
includes the Clintons’ Chappaqua home; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), former
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), along
with former Israeli Amb. Michael Oren, among others.

Clinton lingered after the event, hugging Lowey, greeting old colleagues
from the State Department, taking pictures with Oren and huddling with
Graham.

*Wall Street Journal: “Iran Talks Likely to Figure in Any Hillary Clinton
2016 Bid”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-talks-likely-to-figure-in-any-hillary-clinton-2016-bid-1417823608>*

By Jay Solomon and Peter Nicholas

December 5, 2014, 7:39 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Former Diplomat Remains Tied to Administration Efforts to Seal
Nuclear Deal; GOP Says Tehran Uses the Talks as Cover

WASHINGTON— Hillary Clinton has distanced herself from the Obama
administration’s increasingly unpopular handling of international issues,
including Syria and Russia.

The former secretary of state is much more closely tied to current U.S.
diplomatic efforts toward Iran aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program.
Mrs. Clinton has taken credit for initiating secret talks with Iran in 2012
that formed the foundation for negotiations that were recently extended
another seven months. In addition, one of her closest foreign-policy
advisers at the State Department, Jake Sullivan, remains one of the Obama
administration’s top negotiators with the Iranian diplomats.

Republicans are already citing Iran as a likely top foreign-policy issue in
the 2016 campaign, when Mrs. Clinton is expected to be the front-runner for
the Democratic presidential nomination. They say the White House is
allowing Tehran to use the talks as a cover to weaken Western sanctions and
to advance its nuclear program. The White House has said its diplomacy, and
an interim agreement reached last year, have capped key parts of Iran’s
nuclear program and rolled it back in some areas.

In a July CNN interview, Mrs. Clinton pushed for a U.S. negotiating line
that would allow Iran to maintain little to no ability to produce nuclear
fuel in the near term. But U.S. diplomats have already conceded in talks
that Tehran would maintain thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium
as part of any final deal.

She spoke about the Iran nuclear talks at an event Friday night hosted by
the Brookings Institution think tank, saying she supported the extension of
nuclear negotiations with Iran. But she displayed distance from the White
House’s policies on Iran. She said she wished the Obama administration “had
spoken out more” to support a pro-democracy movement that broke out in Iran
in 2009. “You never know...what you may say that gives heart to people.”

Interviewed at the event by a political supporter, Haim Saban, Mrs. Clinton
said the U.S. mustn’t be overly willing to reach a deal with Iran. “I
remain strongly of the view that no deal is better than a bad deal,” she
said.

Still, she said the negotiations are an important step. “I think it is a
very important effort to continue to pursue, and to try to see if we can
reach an agreement that is in line with our requirements.”

Despite her apparent differences with the negotiators, Republicans say she
is locked into the Obama administration’s policy because of her role in
shaping it. Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), a member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, said she was the “chief architect” of the Obama foreign
policy for four years and will have to answer for any failings when it
comes to Iran. “For the most part, the current secretary of state has
carried on the policies that she started,” he said. “There hasn’t been a
tremendous difference between the two relative to Iran.”

Mrs. Clinton, through her office, declined to comment for this article.

During her 2008 presidential bid, Mrs. Clinton occasionally roiled the
Democratic contest with hawkish statements about Iran, at one point
slamming then-Sen. Barack Obama’s call for direct talks as “naive.”

On joining Mr. Obama’s administration, she expressed greater skepticism
than did Mr. Obama toward engaging Iran. Weeks after moving to the State
Department, she told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates she
was “doubtful” Tehran would respond to U.S. offers to hold talks over its
nuclear program, according to senior U.S. officials, a comment seen as a
slap at the White House.

Still, Mrs. Clinton moved aggressively to implement Mr. Obama’s strategy,
offering the prospect of talks while boosting economic pressure on Tehran.

Her supporters and some foreign-policy experts say she will be able to
argue that her efforts to impose sanctions were the primary reason Tehran
agreed to hold direct, high-level talks.

“She was one of the foremost Iran skeptics, and by taking a tough line…she
also teed up the kind of leverage that might lead to an agreement, should
there be one,” said the author David Rothkopf, who recently published a
book on the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton was intimately involved in establishing the
diplomatic channel that laid the groundwork for today’s nuclear
negotiations, said current and former U.S. officials.

In the summer of 2012, Mrs. Clinton secretly dispatched Mr. Sullivan, then
her deputy chief of staff, to the Omani capital, Muscat, to meet senior
Iranian diplomats. Not even Mr. Sullivan’s colleagues were told of his
mission.

“For the delicate first meeting with the Iranians, Jake was not the most
experienced diplomat at the State Department I could have chosen, but he
was discreet and had my absolute confidence,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in her new
book, “Hard Choices.” “His presence would send a powerful message that I
was personally invested in this process.”

Mr. Sullivan went on to become one of the Obama administration’s top
nuclear negotiators with Iran, remaining in that role after Mrs. Clinton
left the State Department in early 2013.

The 38-year-old is widely expected to be in line for a senior position in a
Clinton administration. Mr. Sullivan’s departure this summer as a
foreign-policy aide to Vice President Joe Biden was seen as a prelude to
his transition into advising the former first lady’s presidential bid.

“Unlike others in the Obama administration who will be long gone in 2017,
he will own this deal if Hillary Clinton becomes president,” said Mark
Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think
tank that has criticized the U.S. negotiating strategy with Iran. “The
pressure on him to do a good deal is enormous.”

Mr. Sullivan is currently teaching at Yale University but has continued on
as part of the U.S. negotiating team with Iran. In meetings with Republican
skeptics of the Iran talks, he has mirrored Mrs. Clinton’s more hawkish
line, according to participants in some of the meetings.

People close to Mrs. Clinton say she will likely approach Iran from two
perspectives during a campaign. If there is a deal, she can point to her
role and that of Mr. Sullivan in establishing the diplomatic channel to
Tehran. If it fails, she will argue she was always skeptical about the
chances of success.

*Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier: “Harkin: Clinton shouldn't take Iowa for
granted”
<http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/harkin-clinton-shouldn-t-take-iowa-for-granted/article_5b2ef690-afdc-5bd6-8ef0-4c1f0eff42f8.html>*

By James Lynch

December 6, 2014

JOHNSTON | Whether she asks for it or not, Sen. Tom Harkin has some advice
for Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 2016.

First off, Clinton, who finished third in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation
precinct caucuses in 2008, has to understand that she is going to have to
work for Iowans’ support.

“She needs to understand that she can’t take it for granted,” Harkin said
Friday during taping of Iowa Public Television’s Iowa Press, which airs
tonight at 7:30.

The Iowa Democrat, who believes it’s a 50-50 proposition whether the former
first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state seeks the nomination, said
that if Clinton runs she won’t have the field to herself.

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb is forming an exploratory committee and
Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders will be back in Iowa later this
month giving him four visit – the same as outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley, who spoke at the Iowa Hall of Fame Dinner honoring Harkin, who is
retiring after 40 years in Congress.

Harkin didn’t endorse Clinton, who he hosted at his annual steak fry in
September, or any of the others, but spoke highly of O’Malley.

“I like him a lot. I admire him greatly,” Harkin said.

If she runs, Harkin said, Clinton should take her campaign to small-town
Iowa rather than concentrate on larger media markets.

“Don't just go to Des Moines or Waterloo or Cedar Rapids or Dubuque,” he
said. “Go to the rural areas. Start out in smaller communities in Iowa. Let
them know you care about rural America and small towns and communities.

“You can get the cities later on, but plant your flag in rural Iowa,” he
said.

Harkin also said he will remain active in the Iowa Democratic Party, but
not in a leadership role.

“I am a Democrat and I love my party and I want my party to be good and I
want them to have good policies and good candidates,” he said. “But I don’t
intend to be any kind of godfather or something like that. I just want to
be supportive and helping in whatever way I can.”

He was reluctant to arm-chair quarterback the unsuccessful Senate campaign
by Bruce Braley.

“He’s been a great congressman, he has contributed a lot and I thought he
ran a good campaign,” Harkin said.

The Braley campaign made a couple of mistakes – “We all know about that,”
he said, and Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst ran a “great campaign.” In
the end, however, but the four-term 1st District representative was the
victim of a wave election.

“I’ve seen waves,” Harkin said. “I came in on a wave in 1974, the Watergate
wave. And so I've seen these waves move back and forth. And this was just
one of those years.”

Asked whether Braley should run again, Harkin said that will be a personal
decision for the Waterloo attorney to make.

“I think he is a good public servant. He was a very, very good congressman.
He worked very hard,” Harkin said. “If he wants to run again, I would think
there would be a lot of support for him.”

Iowa Press can be seen at 7:30 p.m. tonight and noon Sunday on IPTV, at
8:30 a.m. Saturday on IPTV World and is available beginning tonight at
www.IPTV.org <http://www.iptv.org/>.

*Washington Post blog: PostPartisan: Ed Rogers: “The Insiders: Who is
Hillary kidding?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/12/05/the-insiders-who-is-hillary-kidding/>*

By Ed Rogers

December 5, 2014, 6:33 p.m. EST

Choosing to run for president means understanding everything the job
entails – both the good and the bad – and deciding you are up for the
adventure. By some accounts, Hillary Clinton is “genuinely undecided” about
whether to run, but while we wait for her formal decision, she seems to be
posing a little too hard.  At the Massachusetts Conference for Women in
Boston yesterday, she repeatedly emphasized how “unforgiving” and “hard”
being president was, saying in part, “Here’s what I worry about.  The
stress on anybody in a leadership position, multiplied many times over to
be president.  The incoming never ends.”

I’m a little skeptical.  Is Clinton really trying to seem reluctant, to
position herself as the candidate who doesn’t really want to run but will
sacrifice herself for the good of our country? Please. That is rich,
especially considering the source. It’s not quite as tone-deaf as saying
she and Bill were “dead broke,” but her act certainly strains credibility
in suggesting she is wary of the burdens of the presidency.

I do think there are some leaders who have been in close proximity to the
presidency who don’t crave the White House the way others do.  Hillary
Clinton could be in that category (as could Jeb Bush), but nothing about
her actions to date suggest anything other than that she is already running.

Nobody craves power and the presidency like the Clintons. Why pretend
otherwise? It’s not bad to be ambitious and want to be president. Many have
been angling for the job for years. Few who have ever been elected
president have wanted to leave the office. Stop the woe-is-me anguish and
don’t give us the phony martyr routine. Anyone who runs for president must
avoid talking down to voters and acting like they are reluctantly willing
to take on the “toughest job.”

To be fair, this is not unique to Secretary Clinton. We will hear more
false modesty from preening wannabes.  I hope the handlers and 2016
candidates will have the discipline to spare us the theatrics.  If the
office really is just too much to bear, then save us the drama and do
something else.

*CNN opinion: Gloria Berger: “Hillary and Jeb: How the deciders decide”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/opinion/borger-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-decide/index.html>*

By Gloria Borger

December 5, 2014, 3:45 p.m. EST

Lost amidst the predictable clutter of the "will-he-or won't-she" questions
about whether Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton will actually run for the
presidency is an unexpected development: a hint of authenticity.

Turns out that political purgatory—even if temporary—can actually spark a
genuine conversation with the public about what it takes to be president,
and what goes into deciding whether you want to run.

Here's Hillary on herself: "The job is unforgiving in many ways, so I think
you need people around you who will kid you, make fun of you. ... You can
lose touch with what's real, what's authentic."

Here's Jeb on his decision: "Can I do it where the sacrifice to my family
is tolerable?...It's a pretty ugly business right now. There's a level
under which I would never subjugate my family because that's my organizing
principle. That's my life."

So while Chris Christie won't answer questions about immigration and Ted
Cruz is threatening to block presidential nominations and Rand Paul is
blaming the tragic Eric Garner death on cigarette taxes, there's another
more personal and revealing conversation going on about the presidency and
how to get there, and we ought to pay some attention.

Not just because it's coming from Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, although
that is a part of it. After all, Hillary's outside support network is up
and running, even if she isn't officially yet. And while Jeb has no
campaign infrastructure or organization, his closest advisers are having
enough meetings with enough operatives to send enough signals that it's a
very live, real, even likely, possibility. Though Jeb's advisers tell me he
hasn't made a decision, the process over the last six months sure looks
like it leads to a presidential campaign.

So all the cheerleaders need is the final hand signal.

Which brings us back to the Jeb and Hillary conversations. They're thinking
out loud, in a way, which hardly ever happens in politics anymore because
it usually gets you into trouble. (See: Joe Biden.)

But they're both doing it because their decisions about running for the
presidency come from places of deep family experience. Hillary lived in the
White House. Jeb visited his brother and his father there. They get it --
at all levels. They understand the power and nature of the job. They also
understand the "what-it-takes" component to run for it.

And, in a way, they've both got similar problems: They're each practiced
politicians, but they're not the best transactional pols in their families.
They each have problems with their party's activist base. And they both can
seem like old news. It's that dynasty thing.

But wait. Maybe all that stuff actually prepares a candidate for the
campaign, and maybe even for the job itself. Clinton's ruminations about
decision-making, for instance, are refreshing.

"Technology connects you around the world instantaneously, so you're
constantly being asked for opinions, to make decisions that maybe you need
some time to think about," she told a Boston audience on Thursday.

"Maybe you need some time to sleep on it. Maybe you need to bring in some
people to talk about it. But the pace of demands is so intense that you
feel like you've got to respond." It's the stress, she said. "Here's what I
worry about. The stress on anybody in a leadership position, multiplied
many times over to be president. The incoming never ends."

It's a much more honest assessment than talking about the tug of being a
grandmother.

As for Jeb Bush, in addition to the personal issues, he's given a big hint
he gets that he's not aligned with the base of his party in some states—and
that's fine. In a recent appearance before a Wall Street Journal CEO
conference, he said the GOP nominee needs to be willing to "lose the
primary to win the general (election) without violating your principles."

Could he possibly be talking about Mitt Romney circa 2012? Or his own
problems with the party base on immigration and school reform? My guess:
Both.

I'm also guessing this: What we are hearing from both of these politicians
are part of the larger conversation they're having with themselves. As in:
Do I need this? Can I do this? Is it worth it to me—and important enough to
the country—for me to spend two years on this?

These are not wannabes. They've been there, in the heat, in one way or
another. So while the subordinates plan, organize and recruit, the actual
deciders continue to decide.

It's getting down to the wire, and they know it. You can hear it. And it
may be the most genuine stuff we hear for the next two years.

*U.S. News & World Report blog: The Run 2016: “Warren Liberals Eye Webb to
Pressure Hillary”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/12/05/elizabeth-warren-liberals-eye-jim-webb-to-pressure-hillary-clinton>*

By David Catanese

December 5, 2014, 3:37 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] “There's a movement in New Hampshire to pump the breaks on a
Clinton coronation.”

Even if Elizabeth Warren isn't running for president, her liberal allies
are determined to place the Massachusetts senator's vision at the fulcrum
of the Democratic Party's 2016 primary debate.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has deployed one of its top
organizers to the early primary state of New Hampshire to ask elected
officials and political leaders there to pressure all candidates to take
stands on Warren's agenda – one that includes expanding Social Security
benefits, reforming the way Wall Street banks operate and making college
more affordable.

“We’re trying to assess who is in and who is out in our strategy to exert
pressure to get all Democratic candidates for president to embrace
Elizabeth Warren-style ideas," says Adam Green, the committee's co-founder.
Green would not comment on the success so far of the project, which the
group began this week.

The goal of the campaign is to slow the coalescing of support around
Hillary Clinton, who is an overwhelming front-runner for the Democratic
presidential nomination. But the movement might only have impact if there's
another candidate willing to stake out positions to Clinton's left.

The only major candidate formally exploring the race with a committee to
date is former Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who has been reluctant to draw any
contrasts with Clinton.

Liberals are taking a wait-and-see approach to Webb, who is difficult to
pin down ideologically.

"It seems like he may have a populist bent, but he's been out of the Senate
for a while," Green says.

But Green posits that Webb could quickly make a mark on the race if he were
forced to be pinned down on Warren's pet issues.

“If Jim Webb went to New Hampshire and local allies asked him if he
supports breaking up the big banks and he says, 'Yes,' people will want to
know if Hillary agrees, even people predisposed to supporting Hillary.
That’s part of the process," he says.

Webb has made one visit to the Granite State since 2013, and it's unclear
if he's heading back anytime soon.

The chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, Ray Buckley, tells U.S.
News he hasn't spoken to Webb or anyone connected to him since 2007.

*New York Times: “Hillary Clinton’s History as First Lady: Powerful, but
Not Always Deft”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/politics/hillary-clintons-history-as-first-lady-powerful-but-not-always-deft.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0>*

By Peter Baker and Amy Chozick

December 5, 2014

WASHINGTON — As a young lawyer for the Watergate committee in the 1970s,
Hillary Rodham caught a ride home one night with her boss, Bernard
Nussbaum. Sitting in the car before going inside, she told him she wanted
to introduce him to her boyfriend. “Bernie,” she said, “he’s going to be
president of the United States.”

Mr. Nussbaum, stressed by the pressure of that tumultuous period, blew up
at her audacious naïveté. “Hillary, that’s the most idiotic” thing, he
screamed. She screamed back. “You don’t know a goddamn thing you’re talking
about!” she said, and then called him a curse word. “God, she started
bawling me out,” he recalled. “She walks out and slammed the door on me,
and she storms into the building.”

It turned out she was right and he was wrong. Ms. Rodham, who later married
that ambitious boyfriend, Bill Clinton, believed even then that life would
take her to the White House and now may seek to return not as a spouse and
partner, but on her own terms.

In recent months, as Mrs. Clinton has prepared for a likely 2016
presidential campaign, she has often framed those White House years as a
period when, like many working mothers, she juggled the demands of raising
a young daughter and having a career. She talks about championing women’s
rights globally, supporting her husband during years of robust economic
growth, and finding inspiration in Eleanor Roosevelt to stay resolute in
the midst of personal attacks.

What Mrs. Clinton leaves out about her time as first lady is her messy,
sometimes explosive and often politically clumsy dealings with
congressional Republicans and White House aides. Now, the release of
roughly 6,000 pages of extraordinarily candid interviews with more than 60
veterans of the Clinton administration paints a more nuanced portrait of a
first lady who was at once formidable and not always politically deft.

Her triumphs and setbacks are laid bare in the oral histories of Mr.
Clinton’s presidency, released last month by the Miller Center at the
University of Virginia. The center has conducted oral histories of every
presidency going back to Jimmy Carter’s, interviewing key players and then
sealing them for years to come. But more than any other, this set of
interviews bears on the future as much as the past.

These were formative years for Mrs. Clinton, a time of daring and hubris, a
time when she evolved from that headstrong young lawyer so impressed with
the man she would marry into a political figure in her own right. She
emerged from battles over health care and Whitewater a more seasoned yet
profoundly scarred and cautious politician with a better grasp of how
Washington works, but far more wary of ambitious projects that may be
unpopular.

Now carefully controlled at 67, then she was fiery and unpredictable,
lobbing sarcastic jabs in private meetings and congressional hearings. Now
criticized as a centrist and challenged from the left, Mrs. Clinton then
was considered the liberal whispering in her husband’s ear to resist the
North American Free Trade Agreement and a welfare overhaul.

“She’s much more politically astute now than she was in early 1993,” said
Alan Blinder, who was a White House economist. “I think she learned. She’s
really smart. She learns, and she knows she made mistakes.”

*An Independent Force*

No president ever had a partner quite like Hillary Rodham Clinton. She
attended campaign strategy meetings in Little Rock, Ark., and later became
the first (and so far only) first lady with an office in the West Wing. She
would bring his meandering meetings to a close. She plotted out his defense
against scandal.

“The thing he lacks is discipline, both in his personal life and his
intellectual or decision-making life, unless he’s rescued by somebody,”
observed Alice M. Rivlin, who served as White House budget director. “I
think for a good part of his career, he was probably rescued by Hillary by
her being a more decisive, more disciplined kind of person who kept things
moving.”

She was an independent force within the White House, single-handedly
pushing health care onto the agenda and intimidating into silence those who
thought she might be mishandling it. She was prone to bouts of anger and
nursed deep resentment toward Washington. She endured a terribly
complicated relationship with her philandering husband. And yet she was the
one who often channeled his energies, steered him toward success and saved
him from himself.

“She may have been critical from time to time with temper tantrums and
things like that,” said Mr. Nussbaum, who went on to become Mr. Clinton’s
first White House counsel. “But she was very strong, and he needed her
desperately. He would not have been president, I don’t think, without her.”

Mrs. Clinton created her own team in the White House that came to be called
Hillaryland, and “they were a little island unto themselves,” as Betty
Currie, the president’s secretary, put it. She inspired more loyalty from
them than the president did from his own team, said Roger Altman, who was
deputy treasury secretary, probably because she was not as purely
political. “She wears her heart on her sleeve much more than he does,” he
said.

But the Clintons were fiercely protective of each other, acting at times as
if it were just them against the world. “I remember one time in one of
these meetings where she was blowing up about his staff and how we were all
incompetent and he was having to be the mechanic and drive the car and do
everything — that we weren’t capable of anything, why did he have to do it
all himself,” said Joan N. Baggett, an assistant for political affairs.

Mr. Clinton had a similar temper when it came to the arrows hurled at her,
and aides learned early on never to question her judgment in front of him.
“He really reacts violently when people criticize Hillary,” said Mickey
Kantor, the 1992 campaign chairman and later commerce secretary. “I mean he
really gets angry — you can just see it. He literally gets red in the face.”

He depended on her more than any other figure in his world. It blinded him
to trouble, some advisers concluded, most notably about her ill-fated drive
to remake the health care system.

But he rarely overruled her, at least not in ways that staff members could
detect. “I can’t think of any issue of any importance at all where they
were in disagreement and she didn’t win out,” recalled Abner Mikva, who
served as White House counsel.

*Finding a Balance*

Despite her boast to Mr. Nussbaum, Mrs. Clinton was unsentimental in her
calculations about whether her husband was ready to run for president. As
governor of Arkansas, Mr. Clinton evaluated a candidacy in 1988, when he
would turn 42, and thought it might be in his interest even if he lost.
Mrs. Clinton disagreed. “You run to win or you don’t at all,” Mr. Kantor
remembered her saying a couple of years later.

Her assessment was that 1988 was not his year. “I think she felt he wasn’t
ready,” said Frank Greer, a media strategist.

There may have been other reasons, too. Mr. Clinton complained to his
friend Peter Edelman that Senator Al Gore of Tennessee, who was mounting
his own campaign for the Democratic nomination in 1988, was “spreading
rumors that he was having extramarital affairs.”

Others had also heard reports. After meeting Mr. Clinton, Ms. Rivlin gushed
about him to their mutual friend, Donna Shalala. Ms. Shalala agreed that
Mr. Clinton was “terrific,” but added that “he’s never going to be
president of the United States.” Ms. Rivlin asked why not. “He’s got a
woman problem,” Ms. Rivlin remembered her answering.

By 1992, Mrs. Clinton was convinced that he was ready, and she confronted
the “woman problem” directly in strategy sessions. “We had one meeting that
was solely on this subject at which Hillary was present,” said Stanley B.
Greenberg, their pollster. “It was an uncomfortable meeting, I can assure
you, raising the issue,” he added. “I remember Hillary saying that,
‘Obviously, if I could say no to this question, we would say no, and
therefore there is an issue.’ She spoke about this as much as he did.”

But if Mr. Clinton’s dalliances were a challenge, some of his aides worried
that so was his wife. Some questioned whether he would look emasculated to
have such a strong spouse. “They pigeonholed her,” said Susan Thomases, a
close friend of Mrs. Clinton’s who worked on the campaign. “She was so
strong a personality that there were people who felt that when they were
together her strong personality made him seem weaker.”

Mrs. Clinton struggled with that, trying to find a balance. But she was
integral to nearly every decision — from her husband’s ideological
positioning down to his campaign song. “Every time we suggest something,
Hillary vetoes it, and we just can’t get a song,” Mr. Clinton’s longtime
consigliere, Bruce R. Lindsey, complained at one point, according to Al
From, founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. Finally, Mr.
From suggested Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop,” and that passed muster.

More important, Mr. From pushed for Mr. Clinton to run to the middle, and
ultimately she signed off on that too. She approached Mr. From at a party.
“I thought about it and you’re right, and we’re going to be a different
kind of Democrat by the convention,” he remembered her saying.

Once in the White House, Mrs. Clinton was a different kind of first lady.
Put in charge of revamping health care, she recruited a bright and
supremely confident adviser in Ira C. Magaziner and assembled a bold if
elaborate plan.

She impressed Capitol Hill. “Hillary never turns her head when she’s
talking to someone,” noticed former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, then
the No. 2 Republican. “She is absolutely riveted. She doesn’t look around,
like, ‘Oh, hi there, Tilly. How are you?’ or divert her attention from the
person she’s talking to. That’s a gift.”

Charles Robb, then a Democratic senator from Virginia, was among those who
underestimated her. “I have to confess that I didn’t see the special
qualities that she had,” he remembered. But “when she came over to give her
first brief to a number of senators on health care, it was a tour de force.
And I thought to myself, ‘How did you get so attracted to this Bill Clinton
guy that you missed Hillary Rodham Clinton?’ ”

But the health care effort and its expansion of government involvement in
the private sector proved politically toxic and generated deep internal
division within the White House. Mr. Magaziner was seen as dismissive and
few were willing to confront the president’s wife. “There were a lot of
people who were intimidated,” said Leon E. Panetta, the chief of staff.

Ms. Shalala, who had been named secretary of health and human services, was
one of the few who tried. “I told Hillary that this thing is just headed
for disaster, and she told me I was just jealous that I wasn’t in charge
and that was why I was complaining,” Mr. Edelman, who served as Ms.
Shalala’s assistant secretary, remembered Ms. Shalala telling him.

Some of the White House economists were dubious and privately called Mrs.
Clinton’s health care team “the Bolsheviks.” In return, according to Ms.
Rivlin, the economists were “sometimes treated like the enemy.” Their
suggested changes were ignored. “We could have beaten Ira alone,” said Mr.
Blinder. “But we couldn’t beat Hillary.”

Indeed, the conflict left the president in a bind. “You can’t fire your
wife,” Mr. Kantor observed.

In the end, the Clintons were stunned by the collapse of the effort in
Congress, a defeat that helped lead to the Republican takeover in 1994.
“They may be an irresistible force,” said William A. Galston, a domestic
policy adviser, “but they met an immovable object.”

*Shifting Gears*

After the health care debacle, Mrs. Clinton “retreated for a while and
licked her wounds,” as Mr. Galston put it. She was seen in the West Wing
less and less, while traveling abroad more and more.

She asserted her influence in less visible ways. She persuaded her husband
to make Madeleine Albright the first woman to serve as secretary of state.
She put the brutal treatment of women by the Taliban in Afghanistan on the
administration’s agenda.

She overcame State Department resistance to make a trip to Beijing, where
she forcefully argued that women’s rights were human rights. She exulted so
much afterward that she telephoned Samuel Berger, the deputy national
security adviser, catching him at a Baltimore Orioles game, to thank him
for making the trip possible.

But scandal was stalking the Clinton White House. She had resisted
releasing files on the couple’s investment in a failed Arkansas land deal
known as Whitewater and berated aides who pressed her to do so. “She just
let everybody have it,” Mr. Panetta recalled. But she and her husband
acceded to aides who, over Mr. Nussbaum’s objections, pushed to allow the
appointment of an independent counsel.

It was a decision she would regret. “When is it going to end, Bernie?” Mr.
Nussbaum remembered her asking years later.

That was before the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, began
investigating whether Mr. Clinton lied under oath about an affair with a
former intern named Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton denied the affair for
months, and Mrs. Clinton publicly said she believed him. But not all of
their confidants were so sure.

Ms. Shalala recalled a meeting with Mrs. Clinton with friends from
California buzzing around. “Hillary said, ‘Thanks for supporting the
president,’ ” Ms. Shalala said. “I don’t know whether she knew or not, but
that was the moment in which I thought, there’s something here.”

Ms. Shalala was personally offended. “It was that it was an intern,” she
said. “I just couldn’t tolerate that.” After Mr. Clinton later admitted
that he had not told the truth, Ms. Shalala chastised him during a private
cabinet meeting, a scolding that later made the newspapers. “No one at the
White House seemed mad at me,” she said. “Hillary certainly wasn’t.”

Ms. Thomases said Mrs. Clinton was furious with her husband but never
contemplated a split. “She would have hit him with a frying pan if one had
been handed to her, but I don’t think she ever in her mind imagined leaving
him or divorcing him,” she said.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton went up to Capitol Hill to rally Democrats against
impeachment. “She was absolutely great,” recalled Lawrence Stein, the White
House lobbyist. “They loved her. She called it a coup.”

Without her public support, Democrats might have abandoned the president,
leading to pressure to resign or even a conviction in the Senate. Once
again, Mrs. Clinton had rescued him.

And the Starr crisis transformed Mrs. Clinton’s public standing. With her
poll numbers now sky high, she set her eyes on a Senate seat from New York,
an idea that seemed so improbable that the White House press secretary, Joe
Lockhart, denied it publicly until one day she sidled up to him, noted that
he was from New York and started grilling him about voting patterns.

For both Clintons, the Senate race in 2000 became a way to purge the toxins
of the scandal. Mr. Gore, now the vice president, wanted nothing to do with
Mr. Clinton as he mounted his own White House bid. So the departing
president focused his energy on his wife’s campaign.

“Given the fact that the vice president wasn’t interested in his political
counsel, if he had not had Hillary running, it could have been a very
difficult time for him,” Mr. Lockhart said.

And it began a new Clinton political career that, a decade and a half
later, now seems aimed once again at the White House. Imagine what Mr.
Nussbaum would have thought of that in the 1970s.

*Yahoo: “Is it already too late for a Democrat to derail Hillary Clinton in
2016?”
<http://news.yahoo.com/is-it-already-too-late-for-a-democrat-to-derail-hillary-clinton-in-2016-181014036.html>*

By Andrew Romano

December 5, 2014

In an interview this week with New York magazine, comedian Chris Rock was
asked to predict which Republican candidate would face off against Hillary
Clinton in the 2016 presidential contest. He immediately rejected the
premise of the question — i.e., that Clinton is a shoo-in for the
Democratic nomination.

“It’s still not a done deal with Hillary,” Rock said. “Remember, she was
ahead last time. She had all the black people. And she lost to somebody she
really shouldn’t have lost to.”

Interviewer Frank Rich agreed. “Obama came out of nowhere, basically,” he
said. “Who in the Democratic Party could go after Hillary, though?”

“There was no Barack Obama until Barack Obama either,” Rock replied.

Versions of this argument — Don’t worry, liberals: Hillary looked like a
sure thing last time, too … until a better candidate saved the day — have
been gaining traction recently.

There’s only one problem: History doesn’t support Rock’s thesis.

At this point in the 2008 cycle (the first week of December 2006) Barack
Obama was already Barack Obama. His official announcement may have been two
months off, but even then, he had a ton of money. He had a ton of media
attention. He was hinting — heavily — that he was going to run. And the
polling plainly showed that he was competitive.

Exactly eight years later, Obama’s would-be successors — the three
candidates who have openly expressed interest in challenging Clinton for
the Democratic nomination in 2016 — are so far behind Obama’s December 2006
benchmarks on each of these metrics that it would take a miracle for any of
them to catch up.

In fact, the only person who comes close to measuring up to Obama circa
2006 has repeatedly said that she will not run: Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren.

Of course, even if Clinton were to capture the Democratic nomination in
2016, the general election would be anything but a coronation. The
potential Republican field is full of fresh faces (Marco Rubio, Chris
Christie) and seasoned pros (Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee), and the eventual
nominee is likely to emerge battle-tested and ready to give Clinton a run
for her money.

Still, a close reading of the record suggests that if Warren doesn’t get
into the race, Clinton is not likely to face an Obama-caliber primary
challenge. Let’s rewind to December 2006 and take a look at where things
stood for Obama back then versus where things stand right now:

Money: In December 2006, Democrats were just coming off a stunning midterm
victory — the party won control of both houses of Congress for the first
time since 1994 — and observers were praising Obama as the cycle’s star
surrogate. “Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has become the prize catch of
the midterm campaign,” wrote Anne Kornblut of The New York Times. “More
sought after than virtually every other Democrat, Mr. Obama was fully
booked, long ago, on a schedule to take him across a large swath of the
country to help his party try to win control of Congress.”

Obama’s finances bore this out. Even though he wasn’t running for office
himself — he had just become a U.S. senator two years earlier — Obama
managed to raise a staggering $4.39 million through his leadership PAC,
Hope Fund, over the course of the cycle, plus another $1.02 million through
his candidate committee, according to the Federal Election Commission. And
he didn’t just speak on behalf of his fellow Democrats; he shelled out a
grand total of $770,968 to help them get elected. None of Obama’s potential
2008 rivals — Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd — handed out
nearly as much cash that year.

So how do today’s would-be Obamas compare? It’s not even close. Since the
beginning of 2013, Bernie Sanders has raised $1.4 million and funneled
$136,000 to other candidates. Martin O’Malley has raked in slightly less
($1.2 million) and spent a bit more ($296,497). And Jim Webb has barely
registered at all, collecting a paltry $38,121 and donating exactly $0 to
his fellow Democrats. In 2006, Obama spent the entire pre-presidential
midterm cycle collecting chits and flexing his fundraising muscle. Sanders,
Webb and O’Malley haveMedia: On Oct. 17, 2006, Obama published "The
Audacity of Hope," a book that detailed his policy positions on a host of
issues (education, health care, the war in Iraq) and served as a "thesis
submission" for the U.S. presidency, as former presidential candidate Gary
Hart put it at the time. By Nov. 9, The New York Times was declaring it a
“surprise” hit. “The Audacity of Hope" seemed "primed for best-selling
status,” wrote Julie Bosman. “But its rapid rise to the No. 1 spot on the
New York Times nonfiction list next Sunday, placing the author, the
freshman Democratic senator from Illinois, ahead of heavyweight authors
like John Grisham, Bill O’Reilly and even Bob Woodward, is something of a
publishing stunner.”

Bosman shouldn’t have been surprised. By late 2006, Obama — who’d
skyrocketed to national stardom more than two years earlier with his
keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention — had already
appeared on dozens of major magazine covers. One of them was the cover of
Newsweek’s big year-end "Who’s Next" issue in 2004 — an accomplishment that
he would repeat two years later when he showed up alongside Hillary Clinton
on the December 2006 edition of "Who’s Next," making him the franchise’s
first (and only) two-time cover boy. Obama’s first book, "Dreams from My
Father," had also been a best-seller. During the first seven days of
December 2006, the Illinois senator’s name was mentioned in more than 650
U.S. new stories, according to a search of the Nexis archives. And when
Obama traveled to New Hampshire for the first time on Dec. 10, 150
journalists followed him there.

“Has he cast some kind of magic spell over the normally hard-bitten,
cynical, run-over-your-grandmother-for-a-story press corps?” wrote Howard
Kurtz in a column headlined “The Media’s New Rock Star.” “Or are they just
engaged in the audacity of hope that they might get to cover a young and
exciting African-American candidate with a shot at winning?”

Neither Sanders, Webb nor O’Malley has inspired — or fueled — this sort of
media frenzy. Sanders’ last proper book was published in 2011; it currently
ranks 141,416th on Amazon.com. Webb’s ranks 34,153rd. O’Malley has yet to
publish a book. None of them was mentioned in more than 80 U.S. news
stories over the last seven days. And there’s little chance that any of
them will attract 150 reporters next time they visit New Hampshire. not
kept pace.

Polling: This one is fairly straightforward. According to Real Clear
Politics, five major outlets released Democratic presidential primary polls
during the first two weeks of December 2006. They showed Clinton leading
Obama by an average of 20 percentage points; Obama’s support averaged 15.8
percentage points; Clinton’s averaged 35.8.

This December is different. Right now, Sanders is averaging 3.5 percent in
the 2016 polls. Webb is averaging 1.4 percent. O’Malley is averaging 1.2
percent. And Clinton is averaging 62.7 percent.

In December 2006, Barack Obama was already the second-most-popular
politician in the country. He had already gained a significant amount of
support among Democrats. And even though Clinton was way ahead, she wasn’t
even close to getting 50 percent of the primary vote.

Today, almost two-thirds of Democrats support Clinton. Statistically
speaking, she’s nearly twice as strong as she was eight years ago.
Meanwhile, the three politicians who are explicitly considering challenging
her — Sanders, Webb and O’Malley — are nowhere near where Obama was in the
polls at this point in the 2008 cycle.

Which isn’t to say that, should they choose to compete in 2016, Sanders,
Webb and O’Malley would be poor candidates. Anything can happen in
politics; perhaps one of them will run to Clinton’s left and energize
liberals who crave a less “inevitable” nominee.

The point is simply that by December 2006, Obama was already much, much
closer to becoming that candidate than any of this year’s openly interested
alternatives.

Which brings us back to a candidate who isn’t openly interested yet:
Elizabeth Warren.

Sure, by December 2006, the real Obama was already out in the bullpen,
warming up for all to see. In September, he flew to Iowa for Tom Harkin’s
famous steak fry. In October, he appeared on "Meet the Press" and told Tim
Russert that “it is true that I have thought about [running for president]
over the last several months.” And by mid-December, Obama insiders were
telling Newsweek that their man was "about 80 percent likely" to run.

Warren, on the other hand, has insisted that she isn’t running. But what if
she were to change her mind?

Many liberals are urging Warren to step up because they believe her brand
of economic populism could bedevil Clinton much in the way that Obama’s
anti-Iraq-War message bedeviled Clinton in 2008. And on paper, at least,
they’re right: She’s the only Democrat who even remotely resembles Obama
(circa December 2006) in terms of fundraising skill, media appeal and
polling prowess. Warren’s latest book, published earlier this year, was a
New York Times best-seller. She was the Democratic Party’s most in-demand
surrogate of 2014. She raised $4.59 million this cycle and disbursed nearly
$600,000 to other Democrats. And she’s polling as high as 17 percent in
recent surveys.

The bottom line is that Obama didn’t “come out of nowhere” in 2008 — but in
2016, Webb, Sanders and O’Malley would have to. So far, only Warren is on
the map.

*Calendar:*

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

·  December 8 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton attends a wildlife conservation
event co-hosted by The Royal Foundation and the Clinton Foundation (The Hill
<http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/226134-prince-william-to-visit-white-house>
)

·  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>
)

·  January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired
<http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm>
)

·  January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global
Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press
<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.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>
)