Subject: ​Correct The Record Tuesday December 9, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:38:58 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Tuesday December 9, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Sacramento Bee opinion: Karen Skelton: “‘Mockingjay’ script offers tips
for Hillary Clinton’s campaign”
<http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article4299915.html>*

“Clinton is the right leader for this campaign at the right time.”

*Detroit News: “Mark Schauer looks back at failed bid”
<http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/12/08/mark-schauer-interview/20094685/>*

“Schauer said he intends to get involved with the likely 2016 presidential
campaign of Hillary Clinton. He co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 Michigan
campaign.”

*Washington Post: “A crowded GOP field for 2016 encounters donors reluctant
to commit early”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-crowded-gop-field-for-2016-encounters-donors-reluctant-to-commit-early/2014/12/08/737e5f7e-7f02-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html>*

“The upheaval on the right stands in stark contrast with the coalescing of
major Democratic financiers behind the expected candidacy of former
secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton adds paid speech in March, complicating 2016
timeline”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-adds-paid-speech-march-complicating-2016-timeline>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has added a paid speech to her
calendar in mid-March, complicating the time-frame for when she might
announce a potential second run for the presidency.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton’s March Speech
Raises Timing Questions”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/08/hillary-clintons-march-speech-raises-timing-questions/>*

“Hillary Clinton is scheduled to deliver a paid speech in March 2015, a
point on the calendar that raises questions about when she will announce
her decision on running for president and whether she intends to leave the
Democratic Party uncertain of her plans until next spring.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “New race, old faces for Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/226402-new-race-old-faces-for-hillary>*

“At a recent Ready for Hillary meeting in New York, many of the same
players — including Harold Ickes, who served as senior adviser in the 2008
campaign, and even older hands such as James Carville and Paul Begala, who
worked in the Bill Clinton White House — addressed hundreds of donors and
supporters… Other former Clinton aides who are now involved in the
pro-Clinton super-PACs Ready for Hillary and Correct the Record were also
in attendance.”

*Politico: “Big Labor eyes Hillary warily”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/big-labor-hillary-clinton-113410.html>*

“Their dilemma will be whether any of the underdog candidates can gain
enough traction to nudge Clinton toward policies they want discussed, such
as how to grow the middle class.”

*New York Times: “MoveOn.org Looks to Nudge Elizabeth Warren Into 2016
Presidential Race”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/looking-to-nudge-senator-elizabeth-warren-into-2016-presidential-race.html>*

“The liberal group is poised to spend $1 million on a campaign to draft
Senator Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, into the 2016 presidential
race, an indication of an appetite among some activists for a more
progressive alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

*Politico Magazine: “Can the Left Launch Its Own Tea Party?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/left-tea-party-113399.html#.VIbfQvldWSo>*

[Subtitle:] “After the midterm debacle, liberal insurgents say it’s time to
upend the Democratic Party.”

*Wall Street Journal column: WSJ’s Bret Stephens: “Hillary Clinton’s
Empathy Deficit”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-hillary-clintons-empathy-deficit-1418083751>*

“Her problem is that she appears to be a singularly lousy empathizer.”

*Articles:*

*Sacramento Bee opinion: Karen Skelton: “‘Mockingjay’ script offers tips
for Hillary Clinton’s campaign”
<http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article4299915.html>*

By Karen Skelton

December 6, 2014, 3:00 p.m.

If you’re a “Hunger Games” fan, you probably saw “Mockingjay – Part 1” over
the Thanksgiving weekend, the third of the four-part movie franchise
starring Jennifer Lawrence as the revolutionary leader Katniss Everdeen. As
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s inner circle now hunkers down to plot her probable
presidential campaign, they would do well to memorize the script.

In the movie, Everdeen becomes the face of the populist revolution against
the “Capitol” and its control over the fictional nation’s economic and
social infrastructure. In the 2016 presidential race, it is possible for
Clinton to become the face of another bottoms-up economic revolution, one
that makes history by forcing a dysfunctional and out-of-date government to
do something about expanding the middle class. This revolution requires
government to see the economy through the lens of women, which has never
been done before.

Clinton is the right leader for this campaign at the right time.
Recognizing the central economic role of women and girls has been a through
line of her work for 40 years, as a young attorney, first lady, United
States senator and secretary of state, where she championed an
unprecedented number of programs to advance women’s entrepreneurship and
empowerment.

But there is nothing inevitable about this plot. No serious political
operative or casual observer or hopeful friend thinks Clinton is going to
have an easy time being elected president.

Her vulnerability lies in appearing inauthentic and unconnected to the very
people she can help most. These are anxious voters far removed from
Washington politics, marching to and from work, juggling child care and
elder care, just trying to make ends meet. How can she let them know she
understands what their life is really like when she’s lived most of the
last 30 years in a celebrity bubble?

Clinton’s global iconic status has unfortunate consequences for a
presidential candidate running on issues of fairness and economic mobility.
Clinton cannot truly be connected to most people, and people cannot get
traction with her, when they are separated by the motorcades, rope lines,
security detail and staff surrounding her.

Clinton is tightly scripted and scheduled, with few opportunities to live
like people whose vote she needs, people who grocery shop, drive cars and
exercise with friends. In the bubble, there are handlers everywhere,
pushing elevator buttons, handing you breath mints, whispering supporters’
names into your ear before meticulously organized “meet and greets” with
“real people.” I know. I’ve done this duty hundreds of times as an
inside-the-bubble staffer.

While a lot of Clinton’s handling and separation is necessary and
inevitable, it comes at a cost, especially to her. It deprives her of the
connections to people who nourish her emotional memory bank and who will
introduce her to stories that matter, because they illustrate the policy
changes she speaks to. Without this sustenance, candidates become
automated, less authentic and less appealing to voters. Voters stay home.

Confronting this problem of inauthenticity is where Everdeen and her team
help Clinton most.

“Think of those incidents when Katniss Everdeen genuinely moved you … made
you feel something real,” instructed the revolution’s tortured campaign
consultant, played by Woody Harrelson. “You’ll see that it was when no one
told her what to do. She was unscripted.”

When did Clinton make you feel something real? How about the moment in New
Hampshire when she teared up at a local diner after the grueling Iowa
caucuses she lost? Or the pure delight of looking into her infant
granddaughter’s eyes?

These unscripted moments gave us a genuine view – and they are the moments
that matter most to voters. It is no coincidence that Clinton came from
behind to win the New Hampshire primary.

To lead the revolution she is so capable of leading, she must, like the
Mockingjay, look for opportunities of spontaneity. There’s a risk mistakes
are made in unscripted moments – “we were broke after we left the White
House” comes to mind – but they are mostly avoidable when caution is
exercised.

And that is now her greatest challenge: to get into the field and be with
the people who form the storyline of her narrative about women and
America’s economy. Clinton’s folks should figure out how to use this time
to allow her to go back to a stripped-down version of her life. How can she
make a few anonymous visits to locations where men and women are living
middle-class lives, being with them as they head to work at a minimum-wage
job as caretakers in hospitals, waitresses or line mechanics?

It might take ingenuity and discreet planning to get someone as
recognizable as the pope into normal life settings, but it might be one of
the campaign’s most important and fun assignments. Think of the decoys and
disguises. It is all about seizing the opportunity to let Hillary return to
Hillary.

Clinton, with her emotions recharged, will speak to fairness with renewed
hunger and authenticity. Like the impassioned Jennifer Lawrence, when
Clinton says “join the fight,” Americans likely will.

*Detroit News: “Mark Schauer looks back at failed bid”
<http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/12/08/mark-schauer-interview/20094685/>*

By Chad Livengood

December 8, 2014

Lansing — One month after losing the race for governor, Mark Schauer is
still searching for answers as to why Democrats stayed home on Election Day
and passed on a chance to unseat Republican Gov. Rick Snyder.

Michigan Democratic Party leaders have begun analyzing election data to
figure out which voters turned out to the polls or returned an absentee
ballot and which ones did not.

Turnout in the Nov. 4 general election was 3.18 million, nearly 80,000
fewer voters than the 2010 election turnout when Republicans took control
of all three branches of state government. Schauer and other Democrats
never envisioned turnout being worse than 2010.

“The mystery is why turnout was less than 2010,” Schauer said Monday in a
wide-ranging interview with The Detroit News. “I think if we had had a
turnout anywhere close to turnout in 2006, I’d be Gov.-elect Mark Schauer
right now. I have no doubt about that.”

The 2006 contest was a national wave election for Democrats, drawing a
record 3.8 million voters to cast ballots in Michigan and carrying
then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm to re-election victory over Republican
businessman Dick DeVos.

“The evaluation that I’m interested in is why Democrats don’t vote in
midterm elections near to the level that they do in presidential
elections,” Schauer said.

In one of his first interviews since losing the election, Schauer said he
believes his campaign “controlled the narrative” on education funding and
Snyder’s controversial tax on some pension income.

But as campaign manager BJ Neidhardt reminded him after the 4 percentage
point loss: “There are no moral victories.”

“I agree completely. We lost,” Schauer said in an interview at the Michigan
Laborers District Council’s office in Lansing. “But if I had a crystal
ball, it would be about figuring how we can better connect with those
voters that didn’t vote and turn them out.”

Schauer, a former congressman and state legislator from Battle Creek, said
he’s participating in a “post-mortem” study of election data with other
Democratic Party leaders.

But Schauer says he has no future political “agenda,” only an interest in
helping his party win races in future midterm elections when the balance of
power in Lansing is determined.

“It’s unlikely I’ll be on the ballot again as a partisan candidate,” said
Schauer, 53.

Bobby Schostak, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, said Schauer’s
search for answers about the lackluster Democratic turnout may be fruitless.

“It really is no mystery as to what happened here,” Schostak said Monday.
“We turned out our voters, we had a better candidate and we had Michigan
recovering under this governor.”

The Secretary of State’s Office released the qualified voter file Thursday,
detailing who voted and who did not. Political operatives in both parties
are scouring over the data, comparing the names of voters who cast ballots
with the ones they appealed to this fall through door knocking, phone
calls, emails and social media.

Based on that data, the Michigan Republican Party has determined that about
250,000 Republicans who didn’t vote in 2010 cast ballots this year, which
may have aided Snyder as it was assumed he would lose some Democratic and
independent votes he won in 2010.

Snyder defeated Schauer by about 128,000 votes.

“Not only did we get our folks vote, but I’m sure we got some soft
Democrats to vote with us as well,” Schostak said. “We knew going into 2014
that we have to be focused on turning out our base.”

Schauer’s one regret

Schauer said one of his only regrets of the campaign was skipping a press
conference after his Oct. 12 debate with the governor at Wayne State
University.

Snyder and Schauer had both agreed to talk to reporters separately after
the debate co-sponsored by The Detroit News.

Schauer said he skipped the appearance because he wanted to spend time
backstage with his wife, sister and family before heading to another
late-night event.

“If I had a do-over in the campaign, that would be it,” Schauer said. “I
regret not sharing my positive feelings about the debate with the press.”

Schauer later added jokingly: “I should have taken my victory lap.”

Schauer defends campaign approach

During the campaign, some fellow Democrats joined Republicans in
criticizing Schauer’s lack of a specific governing plan.

They said he was not offering enough specifics about how he would pay for
repeal of a tax on pension income that generates $350 million for the
state’s coffers or how he would put more money into K-12 education without
raising taxes.

Schauer defended his campaign’s approach.

“I don’t think there’s any question that we provided more specifics in a
more specific jobs plan than Rick Snyder did about what he would do in a
second term,” Schauer said. “I would challenge anyone to say what did Rick
Snyder promise in a second term, other than more of the same.”

Schauer conceded, though, that Snyder’s work to turnaround the city of
Detroit aided his re-election campaign with voters in the suburbs.

“It seems clear that the governor had an advantage in the critical counties
of Oakland and Macomb,” Schauer said.

‘I’ve moved on from that’

Schauer’s race for governor was his 10th bid for public offices, which have
included the Battle Creek City Commission, the state House and Senate and
U.S. House of Representatives.

Schauer lost re-election to Congress in 2010 to Republican Tim Walberg,
swept out of office after one term by the same wave that helped put Snyder
in office.

After that, he went to work for the Michigan Laborers. He has resumed
consulting for the labor union and is weighing future job options in
Michigan or out-of-state, but did not elaborate.

“I’m exploring some other ways to be engaged in public service,” he said.
“I haven’t made any big decisions yet on any changes professionally.”

Schauer said he intends to get involved with the likely 2016 presidential
campaign of Hillary Clinton. He co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 Michigan campaign.

On the campaign trail this fall, Schauer at times exerted more enthusiasm
for being governor than Snyder sometimes does.

“It was a job that I felt I was ready for, I was excited about, I was
passionate about,” Schauer said Monday. “But look, I’ve moved on from that.”

*Washington Post: “A crowded GOP field for 2016 encounters donors reluctant
to commit early”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-crowded-gop-field-for-2016-encounters-donors-reluctant-to-commit-early/2014/12/08/737e5f7e-7f02-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html>*

By Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger

December 8, 2014, 7:44 p.m. EST

Efforts by potential Republican presidential candidates to win over wealthy
donors have set off a series of contests for their support that could stall
the GOP race for months.

In Florida, allies of former governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio are
tussling over many of the same donors. In Texas, bundlers are feeling
pulled by Bush, Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Ted Cruz. Perry and Cruz are also
competing for the backing of wealthy evangelical Christians, as are Indiana
Gov. Mike Pence, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas governor
Mike Huckabee.

Despite the appeals, which have stepped up in recent weeks, many top donors
have committed to being noncommittal, wary of fueling the kind of costly
and politically damaging battle that dominated the 2012 primaries. Senior
party fundraisers believe that most campaigns will not be able to fully set
up their fundraising operations until at least the spring.

A telling sign of the mood can be seen in the attitude of casino mogul
Sheldon Adelson, one of the GOP’s biggest donors, who has expressed
reluctance about engaging in the early primary fight. Instead, he and his
wife, Miriam, are likely to set up their own super PAC to influence 2016
congressional campaigns as well as the White House race.

The hesitancy among the party’s financial patrons about jumping into the
White House race right away could hamstring the ability of some candidates
to ramp up their campaign operations and quickly break out of a pack of
hopefuls that could number as many as two dozen.

Veteran fundraisers said there is a widespread desire among donors to pool
their funds with other like-minded contributors, so as not to undercut
their impact. Many are holding back from picking a candidate until Bush
signals whether he will run.

With so many potential candidates — but no clear front-runner — the early
maneuvering has had the effect of “just freezing” many donors, who are
meeting with candidates but not making an early commitment, said Dan Senor,
who advised GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.

“You would be hard pressed to find any invisible primary going back decades
that was this fluid,” Senor said. “This is going to be chaotic and
cluttered for some time.”

Establishment Republicans contemplating bids by figures such as Bush,
Perry, Romney and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are pondering how to
whittle the field to one of them, worried that a drawn-out primary process
could produce a weakened GOP nominee.

“It’s really important for those donors who share the center-right
philosophy to try to clear the field,” said Bobbie Kilberg, a longtime
Republican fundraiser in Virginia who, with her husband, raised more than
$4 million for Romney’s 2012 campaign. “We have to have one candidate we
can all get behind.”

*Doing their homework*

The discussions are not just about rallying around a single candidate but
also about how to pick the strongest one.

“There is a heightened awareness of the need for further and deeper
homework on candidates and how they are going to win,” said one major GOP
fundraiser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private
talks.

The upheaval on the right stands in stark contrast with the coalescing of
major Democratic financiers behind the expected candidacy of former
secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. Operatives running a network of
independent groups poised to flank her campaign began soliciting financial
commitments the day after last month’s elections. Billionaire media mogul
Haim Saban, a longtime Clinton backer, recently said he would spend
“whatever it takes” to get her into the White House.

The prospect of Clinton’s financial might has spurred anxious conversations
among GOP donors about identifying early funding for the
opposition-research group America Rising and others to take aim at Clinton
while the Republican primaries are underway.

“There will be a coalition of people who are going to really focus on
making sure the Democratic candidate is not able to take a huge advantage
over the Republican, as happened in 2012,” said Ron Weiser, a former
Republican National Committee finance chairman. “If Hillary is the
Democratic candidate, she will be in a position of being able to define the
leading Republican candidate long before it’s clear who has won. The same
must be done to Hillary in order to be sure she doesn’t gain an advantage.”

The prospective 2016 candidates face more intense pressure than ever to
raise substantial sums of money, with GOP strategists predicting that the
winner will need at least $75 million to get through the first three
primaries — and $1 billion by Election Day.

In a field of as many as 23 Republican candidates, raising that kind of
money will not be easy.

“It’s a very large field of very competent candidates, and there’s just so
much money to go around,” Kilberg said.

GOP White House hopefuls began reaching out to party donors in earnest as
soon as this year’s midterm elections were over. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) held
strategy sessions in Washington with advisers and supporters last month.
Perry is inviting hundreds of wealthy Republicans to dinners he is holding
in a tent outside the Austin governor’s mansion this month. Aides to
Christie and Bush, among others, have individually contacted wealthy party
backers.

The perennial discussions about assembling a national finance team have
been accompanied by conversations about which billionaires will fund
candidate-specific super PACs.

The Adelson effect

Wealthy donors such as Adelson “have an amazing ability to affect an
outcome,” said one party fundraiser. “What if one of them plops $50 million
into one of the primary candidates?”

At a gathering of major donors to the Republican Governors Association last
month in Boca Raton, Fla., aides to some of the prospective candidates
hinted to contributors that Adelson was behind them as a way to signal
momentum, according to people in attendance.

In fact, while the casino mogul has been meeting privately with the top
prospective candidates for months, he is holding off on making any
commitments, his associates said. “He is meeting with everybody,” says Andy
Abboud, his top political adviser. “But any decision about 2016 candidates
is a long ways down the pike.”

This week, Adelson was scheduled to host a dinner in Las Vegas with
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and top Republican donors. The event follows
private conversations he has had in recent weeks with Christie, Huckabee,
Cruz and Jindal.

While Adelson and his wife assess the field, they are taking steps to
dramatically change the way they spend their political money. After
contributing nearly $100 million in 2012, largely to independent groups
that backed GOP candidates, the couple are leaning toward setting up their
own super PAC, as the New York Times first reported.

The decision to create an independent political operation follows an
informal study by Adelson’s staff of spending in the 2012 and 2014 federal
elections.

“We found a lot of inefficient and wasteful spending,” said a person close
to Adelson,who asked not to be identified by name.

Adelson has become convinced that a shift to direct giving would permit the
couple “to participate more directly in individual congressional campaigns
without going through” the committees controlled by party leaders, the
Adelson associate said.

Adelson is not alone in his cautious posture toward the 2016 White House
race.

“The adage of jumping on the bandwagon early doesn’t apply this
presidential cycle,” said Richard Hohlt, a Washington lobbyist who has
served on the finance committees of GOP candidates since the days of Ronald
Reagan. Hohlt has been attending meetings with potential 2016 candidates
since the fall and says that he senses a noticeable hesitancy in the donor
community.

“What most of us have learned in the last two cycles is that you need to
verify the effectiveness of the campaign organization and the ability of
the candidate to get across the finish line,” he said. “With so many
candidates potentially running, most of us are thinking, ‘It is better to
keep our powder dry.’ ”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton adds paid speech in March, complicating 2016
timeline”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-adds-paid-speech-march-complicating-2016-timeline>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

December 8, 2014, 5:25 p.m. EST

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has added a paid speech to her
calendar in mid-March, complicating the time-frame for when she might
announce a potential second run for the presidency.

On March 19, Clinton will give the keynote address at a conference
organized by the New York and New Jersey chapter of the American Camp
Association. The conference bills itself as the largest gathering of camp
professionals in the world.

Susie Lupert, the group’s executive director, confirmed to msnbc that
Clinton will be paid for her appearance. “She is being paid for this
speech. We went through the regular channels,” Lupert said. Lupert stopped
short at specifying how much, however.

The timing of Clinton’s potential 2016 presidential run remains very much
up in the air. The first time Clinton ran for president, she announced her
candidacy on January 20,  2007. Many Clinton allies and observers had
expected a similar announcement date, but the addition of paid speeches
deeper into 2015 complicates the matter.

Clinton could run and continue to collect money for speeches, but her
speaking fees – which range up to $300,000 – have been controversial and
would likely be a political headache. She could also cancel the appearances
after an announcement. But the fact that she’s adding new bookings shows
that Clinton has not fully made up her mind on timing, or even if she’ll
run, Clinton allies say.

Asked about timing at a recent gathering of the pro-Clinton super PAC Ready
for Hillary, former Clinton White House political director Craig Smith said
no one really knows. “I’ve given up on speculating on that. There’s the get
in early crowd, the get in late crowd. All I know is I’ve got to keep going
until the day she decides,” said Smith, who is now advising Ready for
Hillary.

The former secretary of state will also give what appears to be a paid
speech in Silicon Valley in late February, as Politico first reported, and
two speeches in Canada sponsored by a bank.

Her scheduled appearance in March at the camp association may be more in
keeping with themes Clinton will likely include if she runs for the White
House. “The camp business is all about youth development and learning
outside of school,” Lupert said. And Clinton’s “passion for youth
development is clear. The importance of early education is clear. And she
just seems to fit really well with what we are trying to do in this
industry.”

The Tri-State CAMP Conference, which will be held at the Atlantic City
Convention Center in New Jersey, expects to draw 3,000 camp professionals,
camp staff, youth development professionals, and “out of school”
experiential educators, according to a press release.

Lupert said her group considered that Clinton might be running for
president, but said they have long wanted to bring her to their conference.
“It’s something that we obviously considered,” she said, while stressing
that the non-profit is “completely non-political.”

The date for conference was set three years in advance.

Clinton’s spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton’s March Speech
Raises Timing Questions”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/08/hillary-clintons-march-speech-raises-timing-questions/>*

By Peter Nicholas

December 8, 2014, 8:18 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to deliver a paid speech in March 2015, a
point on the calendar that raises questions about when she will announce
her decision on running for president and whether she intends to leave the
Democratic Party uncertain of her plans until next spring.

The American Camp Association, New York and New Jersey said Monday that
Mrs. Clinton will address its conference in Atlantic City on March 19. She
will be paid for the appearance, said Susie Lupert, executive director of
the association. Ms. Lupert wouldn’t disclose the sum.  Mrs. Clinton
typically receives speaking fees in the range of $200,000 to $300,000.

“We often have high profile people and it seemed like, wow, if we could get
someone like her at this moment , that would be a real coup for our
organization,” Ms. Lupert said in an interview on Monday. When Mrs. Clinton
agreed to appear, “we were thrilled,” she added.

She said her association began discussions with Mrs. Clinton over the
summer. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s office didn’t immediately respond to
a request for comment.

The association describes itself as a nonprofit group that aims to promote
“the quality of the summer camp experience.”

Mrs. Clinton has said she is mulling a presidential bid but won’t announce
her plans until the new year.

In the 2008 presidential race, she announced her candidacy in January 2007.
Were she to stick to that timetable in the 2016 election cycle, she would
announce her plans next month.

She is running well ahead of other prospective Democratic candidates in
early polling and she is widely expected to run.

But it would seem unlikely that she would be an announced candidate for
president and still be delivering paid speeches. Were she to do that, she
would open herself to criticism that her interests are divided. She would
also be vulnerable to criticism that private interests were trying to curry
favor with a potential president of the U.S. by paying her speaking fees.

Such considerations would suggest that she won’t announce her candidacy
until at least the spring of 2015 – after she is done with her paid
speeches.

But waiting that long poses another set of complications. Some Democrats
say that that Mrs. Clinton has effectively frozen the field – that
potential candidates can’t raise money or actively begin running until they
know whether she’s in the race. Were she to bow out, that could leave some
lesser-known prospective Democratic candidates at a disadvantage, forcing
them to mount a campaign at a comparatively late date in the calendar.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “New race, old faces for Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/226402-new-race-old-faces-for-hillary>*

By Amie Parnes

December 9, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

Just a few months before many expect Hillary Clinton to announce a second
bid for the White House, the players in her orbit look a lot like the ones
who surrounded her the first time she ran for president.

And that’s a worry to many Clinton supporters, who fear a 2016 run could
fall victim to some of the same dysfunctions as her 2008 bid.

Clinton’s 2008 campaign was infamous for infighting at the staff level —
complete with epic outbursts at staff meetings and power struggles
throughout the operation.

“I don’t think it’ll be much different,” said one top Democratic
strategist. “While some people won’t be returning, the core group will be
the same as 2008 and I don’t see it changing much.”

While Clinton only has a staff of about a half-dozen currently working for
her, hundreds of former Clintonites, from her East Wing and Senate days as
well as from her last campaign, are itching for an announcement so they can
pounce for Round 2.

One of Clinton’s biggest strengths is also one of her biggest weaknesses,
say veteran Clinton-watchers: loyalty to a fault.

She and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have built an endless
Rolodex from their days in Arkansas to Hillary Clinton’s time at the State
Department and value loyalty in staff. In turn, ex-staffers support the
former first couple to no end.

That creates a problem, says a former aide.

“They have these fan boys and fan girls who go all the way back to
Arkansas, former staff, longtime friends, donors, acquaintances,” the
ex-aide said. “You don’t need all those people to provide advice or run a
campaign.”

Separately, a Democratic strategist said Clinton’s first campaign was “too
ridden by faction” and included too many people “fighting for their piece
of the pie.”

“They need a ‘come to Jesus’ moment where they realize some pretty
significant mistakes were made in 2008 and they’ve gotta find a way to
change it,” the strategist said of the Clinton team, adding that Hillary
Clinton needed to “get rid of some of the dead wood” and add some new blood
to the operation.

At a recent Ready for Hillary meeting in New York, many of the same players
— including Harold Ickes, who served as senior adviser in the 2008
campaign, and even older hands such as James Carville and Paul Begala, who
worked in the Bill Clinton White House — addressed hundreds of donors and
supporters. Throughout the day-long meeting, the halls at the Sheraton
Times Square hotel felt like a Clinton reunion, with the likes of Craig
Smith, a former senior adviser to Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and Jonathan
Mantz, who served as Clinton’s finance manager in 2008, among the familiar
faces.

Other former Clinton aides who are now involved in the pro-Clinton
super-PACs Ready for Hillary and Correct the Record were also in attendance.

Clinton allies say that good staffers shouldn’t be disqualified from
working on the 2016 campaign just because they worked on the losing 2008
bid.

“All of her former, current and potentially future staff should have grown
up and wisened up,” one former Clinton aide said. “Tools have changed,
campaigns have changed, the electorate has changed, the whole world has
changed.

“Involvement in 2008 should not be a disqualifier, but a resistance to
shaking up the status quo should,” the aide added.

Clinton herself seemingly learned some of these lessons while doing
post-mortem sessions.

Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton’s first campaign manager before she was
let go in the middle of the grueling Democratic primary, and strategist
Mark Penn, whose ties went back to Bill Clinton’s White House days, are not
expected to play roles during a 2016 campaign. Both were blamed by people
in the Clinton inner circle for an arrogance at the top of her 2008
campaign.

When Clinton went to the State Department the following year, she
surrounded herself with many longtime Senate and campaign aides — but she
also brought in and relied upon a number of staffers outside her close-knit
network.

It is unclear how many aides to President Obama might go on to work for
Clinton’s would-be campaign, but some have already made inroads.

Mitch Stewart, for example, who served in key roles during Obama’s 2008 and
2012 campaigns, currently serves as an adviser for Ready for Hillary. And
Jim Messina, Obama’s former campaign manager, is the co-chairman of
Priorities USA, another political action committee backing Clinton.

And when Clinton rolled out her book, Hard Choices, earlier this year,
Tommy Vietor, a longtime Obama spokesman, helped manage her press.

Even if many of the same aides reemerge this year, political observers say
Clinton can run a successful campaign.

“In 2008, there were too many colonels and no general to deploy and
discipline the colonels and their troops,” said Cal Jillson, a professor of
political science at Southern Methodist University. “There is nothing like
getting beat ... to instill a little discipline the next time around.”

*Politico: “Big Labor eyes Hillary warily”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/big-labor-hillary-clinton-113410.html>*

By Maggie Haberman and Mike Elk

December 9, 2014, 5:32 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Union leaders vow they won’t be taken for granted in 2016.

Frustrated by President Barack Obama and wary of Hillary Clinton’s
perceived closeness to Wall Street, several leading figures in organized
labor are resisting falling in line early behind the former secretary of
state as the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee.

Top officials at AFL-CIO are pressing its affiliates to hold off on an
endorsement and make the eventual nominee earn their support and spell out
a clear agenda. The strategy is designed to maximize labor’s strength after
years of waning clout and ensure a focus on strengthening the middle class,
but it could provide an opening for a candidate running to Clinton’s left
to make a play for union support.

“We do have a process in place, which says before anybody endorses, we’ll
talk to the candidates,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in an
interview. That could postpone an endorsement until the second half of
2015, he said.

“The big question we want to know is, ‘What’s the agenda?’” added Trumka.
“We don’t want to hear that people have a message about correcting the
economy — we want to know that they have an agenda for correcting the
economy. If we get the same economic [plan] no matter who the president is,
you get the same results.”

The plan doesn’t mean that someone other than Clinton will win the unions’
backing, though some labor leaders are holding out hope that Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) will run for president, and others speak highly of
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But it is a
warning shot to Clinton or any other potential Democratic hopeful not to
take labor for granted.

For Clinton, who’s been battered in the media over the past year for her
paid speeches, jet-setting travel demands and questions of whether she
truly understands the new economic populism of the progressive left, labor
could be a key validator. And at a moment when economic populism is
dominating discussion and Democrats are worried about how to relate to the
middle class again, the efforts to stave off endorsements could be
troublesome for Clinton.

Her backers are mindful of the need to have a strong showing among labor
groups, especially after 2008, when a divided labor movement gave lift to
then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The former New York senator showed how mindful she is of the concerns of
the Democratic base on the economy during a late-October appearance in
Massachusetts on behalf of failed gubernatorial hopeful Martha Coakley.
Embracing the populism of Warren, who spoke just before her, Clinton made a
clunky statement that “corporations and businesses don’t create jobs.”

But Trumka’s hopes of a united front may be difficult to achieve for a
number of reasons. Major unions such as SEIU aren’t part of the AFL-CIO and
tend to operate independently when it comes to politics. There’s
significant doubt within organized labor whether any of the alternative
candidates can gain enough traction to make an endorsement meaningful.

And Clinton has strong, long-standing relationships with some unions, which
could allow her to pick up support earlier than Trumka’s process calls for.

“There’s a sense that people — the members who have talked to me about it —
they feel very close to her,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the
American Federation of Teachers, an AFL-CIO member and a longtime supporter
of Clinton.

“They feel like she’s their colleague, that she’s their champion, that she
is someone who worked doggedly in 2008 or worked doggedly as their
senator,” said Weingarten, who used to helm the teachers union in New York
City. She added that her own union has an endorsement process that she will
adhere to.

Weingarten is also on the board of the reconstituted super PAC Priorities
USA, which plans to support Clinton in a primary if necessary, according to
people familiar with its plans.

The labor movement has suffered a string of defeats since the 2008 fiscal
collapse. Efforts to reel in major pension obligations in several states,
including blue states like New York and California, have often pitted
unions against governors.

In the two years after the fiscal collapse, public-sector unions in
particular became public enemy No. 1, targeted by Republican governors
including New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker.

Labor leaders have repeatedly been disappointed by Obama. They had high
hopes after he declared in 2007 that he would “walk on the picket line with
you” if bargaining rights were threatened. But once he took office, Obama
never pressed for labor’s top priority during the election: the Employee
Free Choice Act. The measure would have made it easier for workers to form
unions but was opposed by Senate Republicans and a few Senate Democrats.

Labor later lost a standoff with the White House in a 2010 Arkansas
primary, when Sen. Blanche Lincoln defeated the union-backed candidate,
then went on to lose in the general election. And labor leaders were again
dismayed by Obama’s muted comments when Walker moved successfully to
curtail collective-bargaining rights. In recent months, organized labor,
particularly unions that represent manufacturing workers, has been angered
by Obama’s push for the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement,
which some have dubbed “NAFTA on steroids.”

AFL-CIO, the massive umbrella group for other major unions, is staging a
series of forums on wage stagnation in the coming months. The first one, in
January, will feature as the keynote speaker Warren, who some progressives
are pleading with to run. Trumka has frequently praised Warren’s efforts to
address income inequality.

Some smaller unions are also taking a look at O’Malley, who will soon leave
office, and Sanders. Their dilemma will be whether any of the underdog
candidates can gain enough traction to nudge Clinton toward policies they
want discussed, such as how to grow the middle class. They also want to
hear how she speaks about Wall Street and efforts to reel in big banks.

The labor movement splintered in 2007, during the run-up to the primaries.
Back then, Clinton was the overwhelming favorite for the nomination, and
AFSCME, a major public-sector union, supported her in October of that year,
at a moment when then-Sen. Obama was on the rise. But SEIU went on to
endorse Obama in early 2008, giving him a critical lift.

This time, much of organized labor is willing to let the nomination process
play out for a while.

“Labor would love to see her have to [work for] the nomination and not have
it given to her,” said one labor official, who has worked with Clinton in
the past and asked to speak anonymously in order to be candid. “I think she
has to deal with our issues first before she gets our support, and we’re
laying off on an early endorsement.”

Every major labor figure interviewed pointed out that the Democratic field
is still unformed and that Clinton is not yet a candidate.

AFSCME President Lee Saunders, who worked with Clinton when he was in
charge of the union’s embattled New York affiliate, District Council 37,
signaled his group is heeding Trumka’s call not to rush.

“I believe that she understands the plight of the middle class,” Saunders
said of Clinton. But, “we’ll have to see if she’s going to wrap her arms
around that and make it a major issue.”

Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen said there is
concern within the labor movement about too little competition for the
Democratic nomination. The worry, he said, is that “the next candidate will
do more of the same as they raise $2 billion mostly from [big] donors for
their campaign. We need fundamental reform, and it is not in sight.”

Cohen said his union is devoting more attention to electing local
officeholders who back its policies, as opposed to focusing on the White
House. The 2008 election “was a clear signal that billion-dollar
presidential politics will not lead to change without a much deeper
movement across our nation.”

To some extent, Clinton, if she runs, will have to bear the brunt of
labor’s pent-up frustration with Obama. But there’s also wariness of the
policies her husband put in place as president, such as the North American
Free Trade Agreement. And as secretary of state, Clinton led the
negotiations for the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which is
opposed by many manufacturing unions, including the Steelworkers and the
Teamsters. Officials from both unions declined to comment for this story.

Steve Rosenthal, a former AFL-CIO political director, stirred the pot on
that very question in an op-ed on Huffington Post shortly after the
midterms, suggested that labor change its entire approach to elections.

“The only way to help the party that won’t help itself is to stop giving it
all your campaign money,” he wrote. “Instead, unions and progressive groups
should lead the way — stop preaching and start practicing what we have
always said the party should do: invest in a national campaign aimed at
mobilizing millions of Americans committed to voting only for candidates
who support a new, populist, all-inclusive American economic agenda. If we
start this parade, other progressives — and the Democratic Party and its
candidates — will follow.”

Some unions are giving O’Malley and Sanders a look. Since the beginning of
September, labor interests, primarily construction unions, have given
$122,000 to a pro-O’Malley political action committee.

Leaders of Change to Win, an umbrella group consisting of Teamsters, SEIU
and UFW, see Sanders as a forceful advocate for union issues, noting his
presence at union halls and on the picket line of a fast-food strike last
week. They want to see other presidential candidates embrace strike actions
by low-wage workers.

“The Democratic Party economic agenda is bankrupt,” Change to Win Deputy
Director Joseph Geevarghese said. “The only way that workers can have power
is through a robust system of collective bargaining, and that is not a
central pillar of the Democratic Party’s economic platform.”

Trumka said he has spoken with Clinton and does not expect she will take
labor for granted.

“I think she’s very astute, and I don’t think she would do that,” he said.
“It’s not about us; it’s about the agenda. They can take me for granted all
they want.”

*New York Times: “MoveOn.org Looks to Nudge Elizabeth Warren Into 2016
Presidential Race”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/looking-to-nudge-senator-elizabeth-warren-into-2016-presidential-race.html>*

By Jonathan Martin

December 8, 2014

WASHINGTON — Some Democrats are “Ready for Hillary.” MoveOn.org is ready
for Elizabeth Warren.

The liberal group is poised to spend $1 million on a campaign to draft
Senator Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, into the 2016 presidential
race, an indication of an appetite among some activists for a more
progressive alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

MoveOn.org’s executive director, Ilya Sheyman, said the group planned to
open offices and hire staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that kick
off the presidential nominating process, and ultimately to air television
ads in those states. The group will begin its push with a website, “Run
Warren Run,” allowing supporters to sign a petition urging Ms. Warren to
pursue a White House bid and featuring a video about her.

“We want to demonstrate to Senator Warren that there’s a groundswell of
grass-roots energy nationally and in key states and to demonstrate there’s
a path for her,” Mr. Sheyman said. He added that the effort was not being
made in coordination with Ms. Warren and that the group advised her staff
about it only last weekend.

Ms. Warren, who is entering her third year in the Senate, has fast become a
favorite among liberal activists for her unapologetic brand of economic
populism, but she has also repeatedly denied any interest in pursuing the
presidency.

“As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president,”
said Lacey Rose, Ms. Warren’s press secretary, regarding the draft effort.

Such comments have not, however, dissuaded her admirers. MoveOn.org is set
to survey its eight million members for one day starting Tuesday, with the
expectation that they will affirm its support of the effort to nudge Ms.
Warren into the race. She is well regarded by the group, having gotten its
support in her 2012 race and joining members on conference calls during her
time in the Senate on such issues as student loan debt.

Mrs. Clinton is a popular figure among Democrats and enjoys a wide lead in
early polls, but some progressives are wary of her style of politics and
believe that widening income disparities in the country call for a more
confrontational figure.

Ms. Warren, a former Harvard law professor, is the most sought-after
candidate among this liberal bloc, but others could fill the void if she
remains on the sidelines. Former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has already
opened an exploratory committee, and Senator Bernie Sanders, a liberal
independent from Vermont, and Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland have also
discussed presidential bids.

Asked about Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sheyman said the group’s effort was unrelated
“to any other candidate,” but added that MoveOn.org members want a
Democratic nominee who fits the moment.

“Voters are looking for bold solutions about how you fix a rigged system in
which middle- and working-class families are falling behind,” he said.

Whether there is significant energy behind the “Run Warren Run” effort may
be known soon: MoveOn.org is planning a kickoff on next Tuesday in Des
Moines.

*Politico Magazine: “Can the Left Launch Its Own Tea Party?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/left-tea-party-113399.html#.VIbfQvldWSo>*

By Bill Scher

December 8, 2014

[Subtitle:] After the midterm debacle, liberal insurgents say it’s time to
upend the Democratic Party.

Even as they publicly condemn Tea Party Republicans as hostage-taking
legislative thugs, the truth is that some Democrats are quietly jealous of
them. Think of it: the Tea Party gang gets to intimidate party leaders,
threaten legislation, block nominees, shut down the government and default
on the debt if they don’t get their way. They cause major trouble.

Boy, does that sound good.

The extreme right has power, and that’s something the left hasn’t had much
of for a long time. But in the aftermath of the party’s disastrous midterm
performance, it’s very possible that the Democratic Party leadership will
be facing its own Tea Party-style insurgency from the other side of the
spectrum. “You’re going to get a fight within the Democratic Party. There
is a substantial disagreement coming up,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, an outspoken
Congressional Progressive Caucus member, recently told the Wall Street
Journal.

The only question is, how serious a fight will it be? Will it be a polite
spat that results in what has happened most often before—the fast
marginalization of the left, with the best elements of the various
critiques being stitched together by a centrist Hillary Clinton, or whoever
is the nominee in 2016? Or are the populists ready to stage their own
grassroots rebellion, setting their sights on eradicating all corporate
influence from the Democrats and undermining any attempt by President Obama
to compromise with Republicans by any means necessary?

Progressive activists such as the feisty Progressive Change Campaign
Committee would love to be able to instill some of their own intraparty
fear, sharpen their populist pitchforks and prod Democratic leaders
leftward. And there is reason to believe this could be their moment.

The rebels offer a message about the chronic unfairness of the system so
potent that even the Koch brothers aren’t above poaching it (a recent ad
from the Kochs’ political arm chastised newly deposed Sen. Mary Landrieu
for flying in private jets, even though the brothers have a few of their
own.) The new liberal insurgency issavvy enough to stress issues that poll
well and relate to the economic anxieties gripping the electorate, such as
increasing Social Security benefits and shrinking the size of Wall Street,
instead of chasing stale leftist pipe dreams like nationalizing the health
insurance industry. And they have the good fortune of going up against
rivals unable to match the intensity of their focus, with a sitting
president managing a never-ending list of crises, a 2016 Democratic
front-runner who is congenitally cautious, and an incoming Republican
majority distracted with figuring out how to keep a government open.

With progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s ascension to the Senate Democratic
leadership, momentum would appear to be with the populists, and they will
likely have multiple opportunities in the next Congress to plant their
flag. Already Warren – who often refrains from personal attacks against
leaders of the Democratic establishment – is turning opposition to Obama’s
Treasury undersecretary nomination of Wall Street investment banker Antonio
Weiss into a populist rallying cry.

And despite the recent jousting between the White House and the Republican
leadership (not to mention the White House and the Senate Democratic
leadership), there are several policy matters on the horizon where Obama’s,
Boehner’s and McConnell’s interests could converge. But since most areas of
potential compromise will likely fail to unify the Republican caucus,
congressional Democrats will have leverage to shape deals, or sabotage them.

Another potential flashpoint for populists is a budget deal. Any bill
passed this month to keep the government open will only run as long as the
end of the fiscal year in September, if not earlier. (Also of note, last
year’s debt ceiling suspension is up in three months.) At some point in
2015, Obama and the Republican majority are going to have reach agreements
on spending levels if government agencies are to stay open. With
discretionary social spending already cut by 15 percent since Republicans
took over the House in 2011, any additional cuts will be hard for Democrats
to swallow. If Obama chooses to trade additional cuts to win something
else, congressional Democrats could opt to play their own shutdown card.

Also on tap is surveillance reform, an issue that animates liberals as much
as civil libertarians of the Tea Party. If no bill is passed by June 1, the
Patriot Act sections that provide the legal basis for the controversial
metadata collection program and the “roving” wiretap program will expire.
As libertarian-minded Republicans have already balked at the mild NSA
reform that passed the House (but failed to clear the Senate) earlier this
year, Democratic votes will likely be needed, and could be withheld.

***

If a Tea Party of the Left rises, it will be something that we haven’t
experienced on the national scene for a long time. Ever since Bill Clinton
moved the Democratic Party to the center in the early 1990s, and certainly
through much of the Obama era, most elected Democrats were reluctant to
play hardball.

For example, in March 2010 the Congressional Progressive Caucus chose not
to follow through on its 2009 threat to vote against any health care bill
that didn’t give consumers the choice of a government-run health insurance
plan, supporting an Affordable Care Act that saved private insurers from
competing with the federal government. Immediately after the 2010 midterms,
the House Democratic caucus initially supported a nonbinding resolution
declaring opposition to Obama’s deal with the Republicans to temporarily
extend the Bush tax cuts, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi still put it on the
floor and a majority of her caucus voted for it.

By 2011, with Obama now trying to work with a Republican majority in the
House, Democratic willingness to buck the President increased, yet was
still limited. House Democrats split evenly over the bipartisan deal that
swapped spending cuts for a higher federal debt limit. But few Democrats
were serious about risking a debt default; the 95 “no” votes surely would
have been fewer if passage wasn’t already assured. And the split did not
cause a deeper rift and did not hamper Obama’s 2012 re-election bid.

However, once Obama’s days on the ballot were over, and Democratic fates
were no longer intertwined with his, populists began to feel out
opportunities to more openly oppose any presidential rightward leanings.
Sen. Warren led a pressure campaign to prevent Obama from nominating Larry
Summers to the Federal Reserve. Immigration advocates antagonized Obama as
“deporter-in-chief” instead of taking Obama’s advice and training their
fire on obstructionist Republicans.

Still, Democrats stopped short of a scorched-earth, Tea Party-style
insurgency. Some progressives wanted Democrats to thwart the December 2013
post-shutdown budget deal over its exclusion of long-term unemployment
benefits, in effect threatening their own shutdown. But in the end, only 32
House Democrats broke ranks. And despite their unease over the President’s
offer to swap higher tax revenues for reducing Social Security benefits by
rejiggering the cost-of-living formula, only 40 Democratic House members
signed a pledge to vote against any such deal.

Moreover, there were no Tea Party-style populist primary challenges of
incumbent Democrats of any significance in 2014, prompting Brookings
Institution’s Walter Shapiro to declare, “the Democrats appear to have
swapped their rambunctious heritage for a hefty dose of Xanax.”

The same could be said for Democrats’ approach to the November election.
They did not embrace the proud Obama message bragging on how the Gross
Domestic Product, private sector job creation and corporate profits all
have grown during the past six years. After crediting the Democrats’ “new
foundation” of public “investments,” health care reforms and Wall Street
“rules,” Obama contended we should build on his record of activist
government to tackle the remaining problem of stagnant wages. Nor did
Democrats go all-in on the combative Warren message that eschewed praise of
the incrementally improved system, bypassing the Obama record to excoriate
a fundamentally broken system: “The game is rigged.”

Democrats by and large passed on any pointed, overarching vision, and
instead ran on a “populist lite” platform of higher minimum wages, equal
pay, birth control access, lower student loan rates and closing corporate
tax loopholes, with some paeans to bipartisanship and fiscal restraint
thrown in the mix.

But now, since no single big-picture approach was fully tested in 2014,
Democrats of all stripes are free to insist their preferred narrative
lights the path to a successful 2016 and beyond. The race to define the
Democratic Party of the future is on.

There will be several testing points along the way. Beyond those issues
with hard deadlines in 2015 is the higher-hanging fruit of corporate tax
reform. President Obama and Republican leaders expressed interest in
finding common ground after the midterms – with Obama linking the issue to
a priority nearer to his heart, job-creating infrastructure spending. There
are several factors that suggest such a grand bargain could happen.
Bipartisan legislation already exists that would set up a public-private
infrastructure loan fund with money collected from corporate profits now
stashed in offshore bank accounts, via “repatriation” of the cash with a
one-time discount tax rate. The concept has been backed by strange
bedfellows such as former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Rand Paul.

But there is a reason this deal wasn’t struck already. Any corporate tax
reform acceptable to Obama involves offsetting the cost of lower rates by
closing loopholes, sparking a myriad of fights between corporations that
has yet to be resolved. And Warren’s populists see the president’s supposed
“repatriation” gambit – if corporations bring back money from overseas
they’ll get tax breaks — as a perfect example of how “the game is rigged”
Progressives see it as a giant handout to corporations leavened only by the
few crumbs of infrastructure they will reportedly be obligated to invest
in. Even if Obama, Boehner and McConnell could pull off this deal, a
Democratic Tea Party could partner with Republicans and scotch Obama’s hope
to add to his legacy a literal concrete achievement.

In the populists’ wildest dreams, Democrats would band together with
Republicans steamed at Obama’s executive actions to derail legislation
giving the president “fast-track” trade negotiation authority. The bill
would allow trade agreements signed by Obama to be submitted to Congress
without any opportunity for amendments or filibusters. Trade proponents see
fast-track as a critical precursor to securing economically beneficial
regional agreements with Asia and Europe, whereas Warren sees another case
of how the game is rigged to serve “Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom,
big polluters [and] outsourcers.”

However, for Democrats to have leverage on trade, Republicans have to be
divided. To date, Republican support for Obama’s trade deals has been
strong, with near unanimous support for the South Korea, Panama and
Colombia agreements. This month, Republican leaders have been striving to
keep the executive action controversy separate from their fast-track push,
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – which significantly funded the
Republican midterm victories — will be lobbying their clients heavily.
Republicans would have to snub their own patrons for a Democratic Tea Party
to stymie Obama’s trade agenda.

While trade may be too big a reach, the other issues appear to give the
populists strong opportunities to make their mark. But with opportunities
come risks.

Populists can make the case that the public is with them on reining in Wall
Street, demanding corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and opposing
unfair trade deals. But last year Tea Party Republicans thought they could
win a shutdown showdown because polls showed opposition to Obamacare. They
were wrong. Republicans suffered major public opinion damage for
instigating the shutdown and were forced to cave in the subsequent budget
agreement.

Furthermore, the Democratic base is far more open to compromise than the
Republican base. In a post-election Pew poll, only 32 percentof Republican
voters wanted the new Congress to work with President Obama. But 52 percent
of Democratic voters wanted Obama to work with the incoming Republican
majority. Democrats are more inclined to see compromise itself as a public
good, a fealty to the cult of bipartisanship that drives progressive
activists nuts. If Democratic base voters get squeamish over reflexively
oppositional tactics, the attempt to launch a progressive populist uprising
could fizzle.

The lesson is: There are limits to how much confrontation the public will
tolerate, a fact of political life that Tea Party Republicans still have
difficulty accepting — witness the conservative rationalizations that the
shutdown helped Republicans win the midterms, leaving out the fact that
Republicans prudently refused an opportunity to shut it down again one
month prior to Election Day. Fighting on principle can earn respect, but
putting gamesmanship ahead of governing will not.

If copying the Tea Party handbook is fraught with danger, where does that
leave the Warrens and the Nadlers? One alternative to maximum congressional
confrontation is maximum public communication. Selling the populist
worldview and winning the argument in the court of public opinion is more
important than fighting each and every legislative skirmish to the
bitterest of ends. If a Democratic Tea Party is going to improve upon the
Republican version, more strategic thinking will have to be applied
regarding what battles to pick and when it’s time to stand down.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank recently recoiled at the recent friction
within Democratic ranks. Noting the difficulties the Republican majority
will have resolving its fissures, he argued, “Democrats should be
exploiting those, not rehashing old fights [and] thwarting themselves.” But
Milbank ignores the fact that tussles between populists and centrists
inside the Democratic big tent have proven constructive, leading to
compromises that form the heart of Obama’s liberal legacy: the Recovery
Act, Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank bank reform. Tension over proposed
centrist reforms that the populists helped stall, such as with Social
Security and trade, have yet to tear the party apart.

One of the oddities of the past six years is that the Democrats have
carried the burden of managing the broader ideological spectrum within
their rank-and-file, yet Republicans are the ones who have suffered the
most from intraparty warfare. The greater acceptance among Democratic base
voters for compromise and diversity of opinion are the poles that have kept
up their tent.

That acceptance will give the populists plenty of running room when seeking
to win the debate with voters, but will also constrain them from employing
the most confrontational tactics inside Congress. Populists need not muzzle
their vision or surrender their votes, but neither do they need to read
Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor to move the Democratic Party in
their preferred direction.

*Wall Street Journal column: WSJ’s Bret Stephens: “Hillary Clinton’s
Empathy Deficit”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-hillary-clintons-empathy-deficit-1418083751>*

By Bret Stephens

December 8, 2014, 7:09 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton is being pilloried by pundits on the right for saying, at a
recent speech at Georgetown, that America’s leaders should “empathize” with
America’s enemies. But what’s so wrong about that?

“This is what we call smart power,” she said, using the phrase that was
supposed to define her tenure as secretary of state. “Using every possible
tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one side on the
sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in
so far as psychologically possible, [and] empathize with their perspective
and point of view.”

As a matter of politics, “empathize” was a lousy word choice, a reminder
that Mrs. Clinton is as tin-eared as she is ambitious: Expect a GOP
political attack ad if and when she runs for president.

But empathy isn’t sympathy. Understanding an enemy’s point of view does not
mean taking their side. Respect is not solidarity. “If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles,” Sun
Tzu teaches in “The Art of War.” “If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither
the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

It’s good advice. Mrs. Clinton isn’t wrong to adopt it. Her problem is that
she appears to be a singularly lousy empathizer.

In April 2005 Vladimir Putin said the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the
greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” In 2006 a Russian
dissident in London was poisoned by polonium—a nuclear attack in
miniature—leading to a breakdown in relations between London and Moscow. In
2008 Russia invaded Georgia. That same year, educational manuals for
Russian social-studies teachers took the view that Joseph Stalin was “the
most successful Soviet leader ever.”

What about the Great Terror of the 1930s, in which millions of Soviet
citizens were killed by Stalin’s henchmen? That, according to the manual,
happened because Stalin “did not know who would deal the next blow, and for
that reason he attacked every known group and movement.” Commenting on the
Terror, Mr. Putin allowed that the killing was terrible “but in other
countries worse things happened.”

Such was the man Mrs. Clinton had every reason to “understand” when she
arrived at the State Department in 2009. What conclusions was she supposed
to draw about someone whose core ambition was to restore the reputation,
and the former borders, of the old Soviet Union? That the time had come to
clink glasses and announce a reset?

Or take Iran. In her most recent memoir, Mrs. Clinton asks: “If Iran had a
nuclear weapon tomorrow, would that create even one more job for a country
where millions of young people are out of work? Would it send one more
Iranian to college or rebuild the roads and ports still crumbling from the
war with Iraq a generation ago? When Iranians look abroad, would they
rather end up like North Korea or South Korea?”

These are the kinds of questions that often confound Americans who too
easily assume that the things democratic politicians want for their people
are the same things dictators want for themselves. South or North Korea?
That’s easy: Tehran’s ties to Pyongyang run deep because both capitals see
themselves resisting American imperialism. Nuclear weapons or a better
economy? That’s easy, too, since the former allow you to bully your
neighbors and dominate the region, while the latter merely create a growing
middle class demanding greater civic and political freedoms.

If Mrs. Clinton made a serious effort to see things from the ayatollahs’
point of view, maybe she’d get this. If she had real respect for them, she
wouldn’t suppose that they are merely too stupid, or blinded by prejudice,
or stuck in the past, to understand their own values and self-interest. Why
do liberals who celebrate diversity seem to think that, deep down, all
people want the same things?

Here’s another question: If Mrs. Clinton is at least prepared to attempt a
show of empathy for the Putins and Khameneis of the world, why so little
empathy for American allies? In March 2010 a minor Israeli official
announced the approval of some additional construction in a Jerusalem
neighborhood, mischaracterized as a “settlement,” when Vice President Joe
Biden was in the country. It was an ordinary bureaucratic bungle by the
Israeli government.

So what did Mrs. Clinton do? She called Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to yell
at him. “I told the Prime Minister that President Obama had viewed the news
about East Jerusalem as ‘a personal insult to him, the Vice President, and
the United States,’ ” as she recounts in her memoir.

Such has been the pattern of the Obama administration, whose foreign policy
record Mrs. Clinton cannot escape or finesse: misplaced understanding
toward our adversaries, shrill lectures for our friends. The next president
needs to make it the other way around.

*Calendar:*

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

·  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>
)

·  March 19, 2015 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes  American Camp
Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)