Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday December 9, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:24:26 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

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

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "[@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>] is in high esteem with liberal
Democrats," @GovHowardDean <https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean>said today on
@Morning_Joe <https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe>. [12/9/14, 12:56 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/542377186754183168>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@GovHowardDean
<https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean> said on @Morning_Joe
<https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe> he will endorse @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>. [12/9/14, 12:54 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/542376842716798978>]

*Headlines:*

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Pelosi on shutdown: 'Do your job'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226463-pelosi-on-shutdown-do-your-job>*

“Pelosi also lauded former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as almost a
lock in her bid to become the first female president. ‘When she runs,
she’ll win, and when she wins, she’ll be one of the best-prepared,’ she
said.”

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Tumbling Down
The Benghazi Rabbit Hole”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/09/tumbling-down-the-benghazi-rabbit-hole/201807>*

“There continues to be zero evidence that Benghazi stands as a major 2016
political hurdle for Hillary Clinton, who served as Secretary of State at
the time of the attack.”

*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>*

“‘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.”

*CNN: “Liberal group MoveOn.Org ready to kick-off $1 million campaign to
draft Warren in 2016” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politics/move-on-org/>*

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren may repeatedly say she isn't running for president
in 2016, but don't tell that to the nation's largest liberal grassroots
organization.”

*Politicus USA: “Elizabeth Warren Rejects MoveOn’s Million Dollar Effort To
Draft Her For 2016”
<http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/09/elizabeth-warren-rejects-moveons-million-dollar-effort-draft-2016.html>*

“MoveOn.org is trying to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president
in 2016, but Sen. Warren has already rejected their efforts and made it
clear that she won’t be running against Hillary Clinton.”

*Glamour: “Is America Ready for a Female President?”
<http://www.glamour.com/inspired/blogs/the-conversation/2014/12/is-america-ready-for-a-female>*

“It's impossible to imagine 2016 and not see that the prospect of a woman
president is a matter of ‘sooner, not later.’ No wise pundit would want to
stand under that political glass ceiling.”

*New York Times: Times Insider: “Inside the Clinton White House: An Oral
History of the Administration”
<http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/12/09/inside-the-clinton-white-house-reading-an-oral-history-of-the-administration/?_r=0>*

NYT’s AMY CHOZICK: “Some people in the party and liberal media outlets have
said she [Sec. Clinton] is too centrist. What surprised me was to see what
a liberal firebrand she used to be.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: Nia-Malika Henderson: “Hillary Clinton has
made millions on speeches. But she’s still not a great speaker.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/09/hillary-clinton-has-made-millions-on-speeches-but-shes-still-not-a-great-speaker/>*

“She has yet to master ‘the big speech,’ which is part of the toolbox of
any major politician.”

*MikeHuckabee.com: Mike Huckabee: “Hillary Clinton's Latest...”
<http://www.mikehuckabee.com/mike-huckabee-news?ID=d1fc8781-6145-4e17-8685-bed3e3ed9a61>*

“Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton made some comments about how ‘smart
power’ requires that we understand our enemies, that we empathize with
them, respect them and see things from their point of view. It might be one
of the most asinine comments I’ve ever heard.”

*Articles:*

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Pelosi on shutdown: 'Do your job'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226463-pelosi-on-shutdown-do-your-job>*

By Ben Kamisar

December 9, 2014, 12:41 p.m. EST

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that shutting
down the government would be a “dereliction of duty,” and she accused
Republicans of ignoring the consequences.

“There’s a difference of opinion of how serious it is to shut down
government,” she said during Politico’s “Women Rule” Summit. “Do your job,
get it done, figure it out.”

Lawmakers are scrambling to bring a bill to the floor to extend government
funding before it expires this week. GOP members are expected to release a
bill that would provide funding for most agencies until September but only
fund the Department of Homeland Security for a few months as retribution
for President Obama’s recent immigration executive orders.

But the House hasn’t yet brought the package forward, which is creating
some skepticism that the shutdown will be avoided. With some Republicans
and conservative groups threatening not to support the bill unless it
defunds Obama’s executive order, GOP leaders may need Democratic votes to
pass their plan.

“If Democratic votes are required to pass the bill, the bill has to have a
certain level of bipartisanship,” Pelosi said.

The majority of Pelosi’s comments centered on how to increase women’s
participation in politics. She noted that there were only 23 women in the
House when she was elected in 1987. There are now 83, including 64
Democrats, according to numbers from Rutgers University.

“Our House Democratic caucus is a majority of women, minorities and LGBT
members,” she said. “That’s a pretty remarkable thing for any political
parliament in the world.”

Despite the progress, Pelosi said that there should be a concerted,
bipartisan effort to increase that number. She said that women could reach
gender parity by 2050 with a motivated effort.

Pelosi also lauded former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as almost a
lock in her bid to become the first female president.

“When she runs, she’ll win, and when she wins, she’ll be one of the
best-prepared,” she said.

“I would like to be relieved of the title of the highest ranking women in
politics in America, I want to have a women president of the United States.”

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Tumbling Down
The Benghazi Rabbit Hole”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/09/tumbling-down-the-benghazi-rabbit-hole/201807>*

By Eric Boehlert

December 9, 2014

[Subtitle:] New Spin: Republicans Are In On The Cover-Up, Too

Like a pair of investigative bookends, two bipartisan congressional reports
arrived this year -- one from the Senate Intelligence Committee released in
January, the other by the House Intelligence Committee in late November.
Both came to similar conclusions about the 2012 terror attack on the United
States diplomatic compound in Benghazi. And both represented bad news for
conservative cheerleaders of the Benghazi cover-up saga, as the tandem
reports released enormous amount of air from the scandal balloons.

The Senate report in January did little to quench the political thirst of
hardcore Benghazi believers. Its findings, which categorically demolished
the most closely-held beliefs of Benghazi true-believers, didn't stop House
Republicans from establishing a select committee in May to launch yet
another investigation. (Six congressional committees and an independent
State Department panel had already investigated the attack, for those
keeping score.) That select committee holds its second hearing this week.

The more recent House report however, does seem to have produced a sense of
creeping panic among dedicated partisans who remain committed to keeping
the story alive through the 2016 presidential campaign. The House findings
run so counter to what Benghazi promoters have claimed that they threaten
the viability of that strategy.

And that's why, in a truly odd turn of events, the Republican-authored
House report is now under withering attack from a cadre of Republicans and
their allies in the right-wing media ("a classic Washington whitewash"!),
who've logged thousands of hours over the last two years propping up the
shaky cover-up tale and trying to turn it into a Barack Obama scandal brand.

"The House Select Committee on Benghazi has stated that it will reconvene
on Dec. 10. Its work will be as important as ever," the Heritage
Foundation's Daily Signal announced this week. (i.e. questions remain!) The
Weekly Standard agreed, with its writers reporting that the latest
Congressional report that debunked every major Benghazi conspiracy to date,
simply confirms that Congress needs all the Benghazi investigations it can
get.

Why? "This new Benghazi "intelligence" report is little more than a C.Y.A.
attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents
at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012," according
to Sen. Rand Paul.

This, of course, is the language of dead-enders. It's the language of
partisans with stunted capacity for reason and who won't concede the facts
on the ground. Instead, they tumble further and further down into a rabbit
hole of what-ifs, spending extraordinary time (and taxpayer money) trying
to undermine the facts while proclaiming the next inquiry will get it just
right.

In other words, a Republican-chaired committee report that debunks Benghazi
conspiracies is now being used as a rallying cry for conservatives who are
convinced the report raises more pressing questions.

Do you see where this closed, hermetically sealed loop is designed to lead
us?

In criticizing the report, note that since the release of the report from
the House Intelligence Committee, conservative critics need to find an
explanation for why its Republican chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI),
allegedly opted to tank his own committee's year-in-the-making report; why
he would authorize a "messy," "bizarre and troubling" report. Did he do it
protect the White House and Hillary Clinton?

Is Rogers now part of the cover-up, too?

But the ruse isn't going to work in the long run because the facts remain
immovable. "A report released late Friday about the fatal 2012 attacks in
Benghazi, Libya, left Republicans in the same position they have been in
for two years: with little evidence to support their most damning critiques
of how the Obama administration, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton, responded to the attacks," the New York Times reported late last
month.

More (emphasis added):

Similar to five other government reports, the one released by the House
Intelligence Committee on Friday said that the administration had not
intentionally misled the public about what occurred during the attacks in
talking points it created for officials to use in television appearances
that turned out to be inaccurate. It also said that no order was given by
the military to "stand down" in responding to try to save the four
Americans killed in the attacks, a claim that Republicans have made based
on the account of a member of the security team in Benghazi that day.

...

The report said the C.I.A. did not have an "intelligence failure" in the
months before the attacks.

For a refresher from Media Matters research, what did the Senate report
conclude in January?

-No Effort By Obama Administration To Cover-Up Or Alter Facts

-No Evidence Of A "Stand Down" Order

-No "Tactical Warning" Predicting An Attack

Talk about a Congressional one-two punch.

But when up becomes down, when evidence creates more "questions," when
reports that debunk conspiracy theories are used by advocates as proof more
inquiries are needed, it becomes impossible to reason about the established
facts. Or in this case, it has become impossible to make sense of what
conservatives pretend the facts to be.

Even back in the 1990s, when the entire Republican agenda seemed to revolve
around ending President Bill Clinton's presidency via "scandal"
investigation, I don't think we ever hit a phase during the Whitewater
waste of money where Clinton's partisan foes were reduced to arguing that
Republican members of Congress were in on the White House cover-up, and
that's why the "truth" remained so well hid for years.

And by the way, there continues to be zero evidence that Benghazi stands as
a major 2016 political hurdle for Hillary Clinton, who served as Secretary
of State at the time of the attack. In fact, a new poll this week found
"Americans overwhelmingly see her tenure as Secretary of State as an
advantage," as the Washington Post's Greg Sargent noted.

No matter. Professional Benghazi promoters are so far underground at this
point, dashing between scandal warrens, that they've lost sight of the
reality. Everybody, it now seems, is on the cover-up.

*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.

*CNN: “Liberal group MoveOn.Org ready to kick-off $1 million campaign to
draft Warren in 2016” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politics/move-on-org/>*

By Dan Merica

December 9, 2014, 2:16 p.m. EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren may repeatedly say she isn't running for president in
2016, but don't tell that to the nation's largest liberal grassroots
organization.

MoveOn.org, an 8-million member liberal grassroots organization, is poised
to kick off a $1 million campaign to draft Warren for president in 2016.
The plan will be put to MoveOn members Tuesday morning, but because of the
Massachusetts senator's popularity with the liberals, the plan is expected
to easily pass.

The campaign includes MoveOn.org opening offices and hiring staff in Iowa
and New Hampshire, two states that are critically important in the
presidential nomination process, and "the assembly of a national volunteer
army ready to go to work if Sen. Warren enters the race."

If passed, MoveOn will also begin producing "ads and media products that
call attention to how Sen. Warren has stood up and fought for the middle
class and her powerful vision for our country's future."

"There is too much at stake to have anything other than our best candidates
in the debate," Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political
Action, said in a statement. "We are prepared to show Senator Warren she
has the support she needs to enter—and win—the presidential race."

Warren has said a number of times that she is not running for president,
despite all the liberal excitement around her possible candidacy. Through
her lawyer, Warren even disavowed Ready for Warren, a super PAC hoping to
draft the liberal senator.

"As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president,"
Lacey J. Rose, Warren's press secretary, said on Tuesday.

That said, should she decide to run, Warren would be far from the first
presidential hopeful to backtrack on a pledge not to do so.

"This is a huge opportunity for MoveOn members, if they choose, to inspire
Senator Warren as she has inspired so many of us," said Anna Galland,
executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.

MoveOn's campaign is as much a boost to Warren as it is a slight to Hillary
Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 nomination and someone who
has failed to connect with some liberal activists.

MoveOn organizers won't fault Clinton directly, but they regularly talk
about finding a nominee that fits the moment for Democrats, not someone
associated with what they see as a longtime rigged political system.

Polling, however, has shown that self-identified liberals overwhelmingly
back the former secretary of state.

In a July CNN/ORC International Poll, 66% of liberals said they would back
Clinton over people like Warren, Vice President Joe Biden and New York Gov.
Andrew Cuomo. In the same poll, only 13% of liberal backed Warren.

But in polls of strictly members of liberal groups, Warren fares much
better. In a November poll of Democracy for America's one million members,
Warren garnered 42% support, compared to 24% for Vermont Independent
Senator Bernie Sanders and 23% for Clinton.

MoveOn is not the only liberal political group pushing for a Warren run.
Democracy for America said Tuesday it would poll its members about joining
the "Draft Warren" effort.

"Washington consultants can spout off a dozen reasons why Elizabeth Warren
shouldn't run, but none of that beltway blather means a thing next to this
one, simple truth: The Democratic Party and our country desperately need
Warren's voice in the 2016 presidential debate," DFA Executive Director
Charles Chamberlain said in a statement out Tuesday.

*Politicus USA: “Elizabeth Warren Rejects MoveOn’s Million Dollar Effort To
Draft Her For 2016”
<http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/09/elizabeth-warren-rejects-moveons-million-dollar-effort-draft-2016.html>*

By Jason Easley

December 9, 2014, 10:59 a.m. EST

MoveOn.org is trying to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president in
2016, but Sen. Warren has already rejected their efforts and made it clear
that she won’t be running against Hillary Clinton.

Via a press release, MoveOn announced their member vote to draft Warren,

For the first time in its 16-year history, the 8-million-member group is
holding a nationwide membership vote on a presidential draft campaign. If
the vote succeeds, the group will focus on persuading the Massachusetts
senator, who has become known as a tireless, passionate advocate for
middle-class and working families, to seek the presidency.

Voting is open to MoveOn’s full membership across the country until 10 a.m.
Eastern time Wednesday morning. The result will be announced at 11 a.m.
Eastern.

The campaign, if ratified by MoveOn’s members, will include:

– offices and staff in early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New
Hampshire,

– the assembly of a national volunteer army ready to go to work if Sen.
Warren enters the race,

– recruiting small-dollar donors who pledge their support,

– and ads and media products that call attention to how Sen. Warren has
stood up and fought for the middle class and her powerful vision for our
country’s future.

The organization will invest at least $1 million in the first phase of the
launch.

Warren’s press secretary put an end to dream of drafting the senator in
2016 by saying for the billionth time, “As Senator Warren has said many
times, she is not running for president.”

Sen. Warren is not running because she supports Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Warren has shown herself to be a tireless campaigner for Democratic
candidates and a loyal party member. She seems like anything, but the go it
alone type who would break with her party to launch and outsider bid for
president.

There is a candidate that would be perfect for the left that groups like
MoveOn continue to ignore. Sen. Bernie Sanders is serious about challenging
Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, and he would welcome a million
dollar investment in a primary campaign organization.

Whether progressives want to believe it or not, Elizabeth Warren is not
running. She has made zero moves towards a bid for the presidency. If
groups like MoveOn were smart, they would be lining up behind Sanders and
stop wasting their time chasing the fantasy of Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

*Glamour: “Is America Ready for a Female President?”
<http://www.glamour.com/inspired/blogs/the-conversation/2014/12/is-america-ready-for-a-female>*

By Jeff Greenfield

December 9, 2014

Political analyst Jeff Greenfield asked that question in this magazine
nearly 40 years ago. Now, as election watchers wait to see if Hillary
Rodham Clinton will run again, he wonders: What's changed and what hasn't?

If those words sound hopelessly out- dated...well, they are. They were
written by me for this magazine 39 years ago, when the impact of the
women's movement was only beginning to be felt in politics. Today, nearly
four decades later, polls suggest that a woman president is not just
probable but imminent.

Polls, no doubt, can be written in sand; Hillary Rodham Clinton, after all,
was the "probable" and "imminent" next president nine years ago. But over
the last 40 years, changes in our politics, our society, and our attitudes
have eradicated nearly every obstacle that once blocked a woman's path to
the White House. Whether Clinton (or another woman) is or isn't elected in
2016, the glass ceiling that kept a woman from becoming president—or even a
presidential nominee—has been effectively shattered.

So as Clinton's much-anticipated announcement looms over the 2016 campaign,
let me show you just how far we've come. Back in 1976, as I reported, 49
percent of men and a disturbingly high 40 percent of women said they would
be less likely to vote for a woman presidential candidate than for an
equally qualified male. Now? According to a Pew poll in May, a full 71
percent of voters said gender would make no difference, and 19 percent said
they'd be more likely to vote for a woman.

Why this quantum leap? In that original Glamour piece, I argued the most
powerful force on the side of female candidates would be "time—time for
women to enter the ranks of government, in decision- making,
pressure-filled, executive jobs."

And the years have delivered. Women have entered the "decision-making"
ranks in government and across the board, in job after job once seen as the
exclusive province of those with XY chromosomes. In 1976 not a single woman
sat in the United States Senate. Of those who had served, all but one had
"inherited" the job from her husband. No woman had ever sat on the U.S.
Supreme Court or in one of the "big four" Cabinet positions (state,
defense, treasury, attorney general). And beyond politics, you would have
been shocked to find a woman in the corner office of a Fortune 500
corporation or sitting solo at a network news anchor desk.

In 2015, for the first time ever, more than 100 women will serve in
Congress. While the number of female senators still stubbornly hovers at
around 20 women, in three states—California, New Hampshire, and
Washington—both senators are women. Over the past four decades, 22 states
have elected female governors; Arizona has done it three times! Many of the
so-called daddy arenas—diplomacy, war and peace, law enforcement, money—are
also no longer "men only" turf. Three secretaries of state have been women;
so have two national security advisers and three U.N. ambassadors. Until
Clinton stepped down, in 2013, women held all these key posts in this
administration. We are a long way from genuine equality—Rwanda and
Afghanistan have a higher percentage of women in their national
legislatures than the U.S.— but it's a sea change from 40 years ago.

What was once eye-opening is now totally familiar outside the political
realm too: Women anchor the network news, run Yahoo and General Motors,
direct war movies. Critics of National Football League Commissioner Roger
Goodell like to raise the idea of replacing him with Condoleezza Rice.
What's remarkable now is how unremarkable the idea sounds.

There is, of course, one other factor that has changed the idea of a woman
president from long-range possibility to short-range probability: It almost
happened.

Hillary Clinton's 2008 White House run is viewed by some as a failure: a
combination of bad strategy, bad management, and bad tactics. Her loss is
also seen by many of her sternest supporters as proof of the still powerful
sexism that would burden any female candidate.

While looking back over the blizzard of comments about her 2008 campaign, I
kept running across the same handful of examples of that sexism: dumb
statements by cable news talking heads ("When she comes on television,"
said Tucker Carlson, "I involuntarily cross my legs"); two louts at a
Salem, New Hampshire, rally yelling, "Iron my shirt!" at her; the Hillary
Nutcracker on sale at novelty stores. But for all the sexism, for all her
campaign's missteps, she came within a whisker (if that's not too male a
reference) of winning the nomination. By the time the primaries ended in
early June, she and Barack Obama each had more than 18 million votes. And
it should not be overlooked that Obama was treated with exceptional
deference by the political press, and Clinton suffered by comparison.
(Maybe journalists in real life didn't act quite like those in the classic
Saturday Night Live skit by providing the answers to the questions they
were asking, but the disparity was obvious.)

Was the loss because Hillary Clinton is a woman? Or because she is this
particular woman, whose ties to the forty-second president may have turned
out to be a liability at the time? In the fall of 2007, when Clinton was
dominating the polls, Republican strategist Mike Murphy cautioned me, "This
is a 'change' election, and she can't run as a 'change' candidate."

Besides, Clinton's 2008 defeat will hardly hold her back: From Andrew
Jackson to Ronald Reagan, candidates have come back to win nominations and
elections after primary failures. Now, with her years as secretary of state
added to her Senate service, her credentials are as strong as those of any
potential president, past or present, especially in an election in which
national-security issues such as ISIS, Ebola, and Russia's militancy
promise to loom large. What seems clear is that the questions she will have
to answer will have far less to do with her sex than with who she is, what
she's done, and what she stands for (though the recent, ludicrous questions
about her "grandmotherhood"—an issue never raised regarding presidential
grandfathers—suggest she won't be immune to gender idiocy). There will, of
course, be other questions, as there should be: Is she too old to run?
Politicos asked that of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and John McCain; it's a
concern she, like them, will have to put to rest. Was her tenure as
secretary of state a success, or was she naive about Russia's
aggressiveness and Islamist extremism? Does she have real answers to the
economic health of the middle class? These same questions would be asked if
we were talking about Henry instead of Hillary Clinton.

Finally, and most significantly, the probability of our ultimately having a
woman president does not depend on whether Clinton wins, or even runs, in
2016. There is now a wide range of potential presidents in both parties. On
the left, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, New York Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand, and New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan have great
credentials. On the right, the bench includes Senator Kelly Ayotte of New
Hampshire and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who may be most
intriguing if you're a Republican worried about the women's vote and the
Hispanic vote.

As I've learned, making a political prediction can be dangerous. A woman
might not make it to the White House in the next four or eight years—this
is a steeply narrow pyramid; we elect only one person at a time to the very
top. That's why, even when discrimination ends, there will be a lot of
groups that will go a very long time before having a president who "looks
like" them.

But it's impossible to imagine 2016 and not see that the prospect of a
woman president is a matter of "sooner, not later." No wise pundit would
want to stand under that political glass ceiling.

*New York Times: Times Insider: “Inside the Clinton White House: An Oral
History of the Administration”
<http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/12/09/inside-the-clinton-white-house-reading-an-oral-history-of-the-administration/?_r=0>*

By Erika Allen

December 9, 2014, 10:35 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] In a front-page article last weekend, Amy Chozick and Peter
Baker delved into an oral history of the Clinton White House, conducted by
the Miller Center. As Hillary Clinton prepares for her own possible
presidential run, the series of interviews with Clinton administration
players ‘bears on the future as much as the past,’ the reporters wrote.
Here, Ms. Chozick talks about what she found most fascinating in the trove
of recently released transcripts.

Q.

When and why were the interviews conducted, and who was involved?

A.

The Miller Center at the University of Virginia has conducted oral
histories of every presidency going back to Jimmy Carter. Historians
interview key players in each administration and then seal those interviews
away for years to come. In the case of the Clinton oral history, a lot of
the White House aides who were interviewed did not realize when they sat
for interviews, mostly more than a decade ago, that by the time their
remarks were made public the first lady would possibly be running for
president. That makes for some of the most candid remarks we’ve seen.

Q.

How did you go about analyzing the collection of interviews?

A.

Peter and I divided up the transcripts. I jumped on the chance to read
through the transcripts that were most revealing about Hillary Clinton, and
Peter knows a lot more about President Clinton and the West Wing than I do.
But we found that she was such an active first lady, involved in so much
policy in the West Wing, that even interviews with domestic or economic
policy advisers provided rich detail into Mrs. Clinton as well as the
president.

Q.

Why were the interviews released now?

A.

They’re typically released a decade later and made available in batches.
This first batch coincided nicely with the 10th anniversary of the William
J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark., which includes a
library and museum. The Clinton center arranged panel discussions with
former White House aides and Miller Center academics to coincide with the
project’s release.

Q.

What surprised you most?

A.

As we look towards the 2016 presidential campaign, a lot has been made
about whether Mrs. Clinton can appeal to the left wing of the Democratic
Party. Some people in the party and liberal media outlets have said she is
too centrist. What surprised me was to see what a liberal firebrand she
used to be. The West Wing nicknamed her health care team “the Bolsheviks,”
and she was the one whispering in her husband’s ear against policies like
Nafta that are so unpopular with the liberal wing of the party.

Q.

Were there any great anecdotes that you’d never heard before?

A.

Most people know that Mrs. Clinton was the first first lady to have an
office in the West Wing, but hearing Roy M. Neel, who was Al Gore’s 1992
campaign manager and who went on to serve as the vice president’s chief of
staff, describe how that went down stood out for me. Shortly after Mr.
Clinton won the 1992 election, Mr. Neel said Mrs. Clinton’s friend Susan
Thomases was in the West Wing checking out where everyone would sit. “The
rumor,” Mr. Neel said, “was that Susan had decided that Gore wouldn’t have
the traditional vice president’s office in the West Wing, that that would
go to Hillary.”

Q.

Whose interview were you most looking forward to reading and why?

A.

I was looking forward to reading Ms. Thomases’ transcripts. She was one of
Mrs. Clinton’s closest friends and most devoted defenders and is a
political legend. She’s the inspiration for the character Lucille Kaufmann
in the 1996 political novel “Primary Colors.” She has multiple sclerosis
now and, sadly, had to retire. It was a special gift to get to read her
thoughts about the White House years.

Q.

Any other gems?

A.

Man, was Ms. Thomases tough. At one point, she makes fun of George
Stephanopoulos, whom she calls “the squeamish guy of the century.” She made
fun of him on the 1992 campaign: “ ‘Ooh, ooh, I can’t stand this campaign.’
I said: ‘Then quit. Your theatrics are just adorable, but quit. If you
can’t handle it, quit.’ ”

Q.

What, if anything, do you feel is missing from the collection?

A.

What’s missing? Bill and Hillary Clinton’s interviews, of course.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: Nia-Malika Henderson: “Hillary Clinton has
made millions on speeches. But she’s still not a great speaker.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/09/hillary-clinton-has-made-millions-on-speeches-but-shes-still-not-a-great-speaker/>*

By Nia-Malika Henderson

December 9, 2014, 12:29 p.m. EST

MoveOn.org is lining up for Elizabeth Warren — the latest sign of her
strength among progressives — by kicking off a $1 million effort to draft
her for president in 2016, according to an article in the New York Times:

“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.”

And with every Warren story, the question becomes just how worried Hillary
Clinton should actually be. And it's this question that reminded me of a
sentence in my colleague Anne Gearan's article about all the potential
"not-Hillarys" who might run in 2016:

“Bill Clinton admires Warren’s stemwinder speaking style, and Hillary
Clinton echoed parts of Warren’s sticking-up-for-the-little guy economic
message during midterm speeches this year.”

It's this speaking style that has powered Warren to her position, leading
my colleague, David Farenthold, to call her the master of the stump speech.
She can bring a huge crowd to its feet in a way that almost no politician
can at this point. And she is also a pitbull at congressional hearings, the
very kind of appearances which will likely go into whatever video that
MoveOn.org will make about her.

As for Clinton, what would be on her highlight reel of speeches? Her
attempted echo of Warren's brand of populism in Massachusetts fell flat.
Take a look at Clinton addressing the recent incidents involving white
police officers and black men which have particularly  inflamed
progressives (at the 2:00 mark):

[VIDEO]

"I know that a lot of hearts are breaking and we are asking ourselves,
aren't these our sons? Aren't these our brothers?" she said, adding that
"each of us has to grapple with some hard truths about race and justice in
America" when it comes to disproportionate treatment in sentencing.

Here is a review from the Boston Globe of that portion of the speech, in
which Clinton talked about the country needing to "find balance" again:

“The remarks, delivered with a slow, deliberate cadence at the
Massachusetts Conference for Women as Clinton stood on a wide stage, came
not long before she is expected to telegraph her political intentions.”

Uninspiring, cautious, careful. "Trite" might be another way to describe
Clinton's riff, which was far from the kind of rousing style that her
husband so admires in Warren.

Granted, race and policing is a tough issue, not given to rah-rah speeches
— especially as federal investigations are still ongoing. But this knock on
Clinton's delivery style goes for many of her speeches. Given that she has
been in public life since 1992, it's a bit incongruous to consider that her
speaking style is often so lacking. She has yet to master "the big speech,"
which is part of the toolbox of any major politician.

Yes, there are some hits — the Beijing speech from 1995 on women is still
quoted today, as is the "18 million cracks" riff from 2008. But those
speeches succeeded because the content was so compelling, and it's hard to
point to a big Hillary speech moment. Her announcement in 2007 came via a
soft-lit video rather than a big speech ala Obama).

The "big speech" doesn't have to be a candidate's warhorse, but it
certainly helps. Clinton makes as much as $300,000 per speech, and will
likely give them up until the time she announces. Those kinds of speech
settings (corporate types) won't likely help her move beyond her slow,
deliberate cadence, and in the meantime, Warren seems like she's just
warming up.

A number of Clinton's potential opponents on the GOP side seem like they've
had a crash course in public speaking (Sen. Marco Rubio especially) and
have a sort of natural charisma and command of the stage (Sen. Ted Cruz).

Clinton has previously echoed the Mario Cuomo line that candidates
"campaign in poetry and govern in prose" —dismissing Obama's rhetorical
gifts way back when it was a liability for her. And similar to 2008, Warren
will function as a sort of stalking horse come 2016 — unlikely to run, but
very much a presence in the campaign, a constant reminder of a basic
political skill that Clinton is still trying to master.

*MikeHuckabee.com: “Hillary Clinton's Latest...”
<http://www.mikehuckabee.com/mike-huckabee-news?ID=d1fc8781-6145-4e17-8685-bed3e3ed9a61>*

By Mike Huckabee

December 8, 2014

Friday in Yemen, US commandos attempted a raid to free American journalist
Luke Somers and South African Pierre Korkie, who were being held hostage
and threatened with death by al-Qaeda. But one of the terrorists spotted
the commandos and raised an alarm. There was a firefight that killed six
al-Qaeda fighters. No American soldiers were harmed, but the terrorists
executed both hostages in cold blood. Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton
made some comments about how “smart power” requires that we understand our
enemies, that we empathize with them, respect them and see things from
their point of view. It might be one of the most asinine comments I’ve ever
heard. How can we empathize with terrorists who think nothing of beheading
innocent men, women and children? America is a free nation today because
previous leaders had the sense to understand that knowing your enemy meant
understanding their weaknesses and exploiting them to win. It didn’t mean
reaching out your hand to monsters who cut hands off.