Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday December 10, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:44:12 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday December 10, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: We need "a President who will focus on
the next 100 years, not one who hopes to turn the clock back" @GovHowardDean
<https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean>:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/howard-dean-ready-for-hillary-113444.html#.VIhHGWTF-IK
…
<http://t.co/aZj6inC4lf> [12/10/14, 11:32 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/542718405279637505>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@GovHowardDean
<https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean>: "If I have the opportunity, I will
cast my vote for @HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> for
President."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/howard-dean-ready-for-hillary-113444.html#.VIhHGWTF-IK
…
<http://t.co/aZj6inC4lf> [12/10/14, 9:11 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/542682910482894849>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> would be the President who America
needs, @GovHowardDean <https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean> writes in
@politico <https://twitter.com/politico>:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/howard-dean-ready-for-hillary-113444.html#.VIhHGWTF-IK
…
<http://t.co/aZj6inC4lf> [12/10/14, 8:46 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/542676617256914945>]

*Headlines:*

*Talking Points Memo: “Howard Dean Endorses Hillary While Group He Founded
Pushes For Warren”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/howard-dean-hillary-clinton-2016-elizabeth-warren>*

“Correct The Record, the American Bridge-affiliated group that is
supporting a Hillary 2016 candidacy, blasted out the Dean endorsement in an
email to reporters.”

*ABC News: “Support for Elizabeth Warren Over Hillary Clinton Reveals
Progressive Family Feud”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/support-elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-reveals-progressive-family/story?id=27503628>*

“Democracy for America’s support shows a schism within the group. They
released a statement after MoveOn’s vote reiterating they would help their
fellow liberals in the draft Warren effort, but Howard Dean — who started
the group — wrote an op-ed today stressing his support for Hillary Clinton.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Dean, in break from group he founded, backs
Clinton for president”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226598-howard-dean-endorses-hillary-clinton>*

“Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on
Wednesday, giving her the support of a liberal firebrand at a time when
some liberals are skeptical.”

*The Week blog: Speed Reads: “Howard Dean endorses Hillary Clinton for
president: 'We need a mature, seasoned' leader”
<http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/273394/speedreads-howard-dean-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-we-need-a-mature-seasoned-leader>*

“In a Politico op-ed, Dean cited three major reasons for his support.
Clinton, he wrote, understands the ‘institutional requirements’ of the
Supreme Court and would appoint worthy judges; she has a sterling record at
the State Department; and she would address income inequality.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: Chris Cillizza: “Howard Dean makes the
liberal’s case for Hillary Clinton. It’s only ok.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/howard-dean-makes-the-liberals-case-for-hillary-clinton-its-ok/>*

“The thrust of Dean's piece is that Democrats badly need another Democratic
president because of rightward movement of the Supreme Court in recent
years.”

*The Blaze: “Howard Dean Throws His Support Behind Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/10/howard-dean-throws-his-support-behind-hillary-clinton/>*

“Hillary Clinton hasn’t said whether she’s running in 2016, but she has an
early backer in former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.”

*Bloomberg column: Al Hunt: “Young Voters Don't Care How Old Hillary Is”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-10/young-voters-dont-care-how-old-hillary-is>*

“Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run for president, would be among the
oldest contenders for the office. Nonetheless, she has strong appeal among
younger Americans.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Ready for Warren to Clinton supporters: 'It's
about to get real'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226641-ready-for-warren-to-hillary-its-about-to-get-real>*

“In a fundraising email sent to supporters, the progressive group that is
urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president touted their
recent endorsement from liberal heavyweight MoveOn.org.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: Aaron Blake: “Hillary Clinton is the
ultimate Washington insider. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/hillary-clinton-is-the-ultimate-washington-insider-thats-not-necessarily-a-bad-thing/>*

“When it comes to someone like Clinton, though, it's hard to argue that her
being a Washington insider -- or even another Clinton, for that matter --
is a massive problem for her. In fact, this poll suggests it just might
help.”

*NBC News: “Who Do the Wealthy Want for President? Hillary”
<http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/who-do-wealthy-want-president-hillary-n265541>*

“Millionaires are sharply divided on their choice for the next president,
according to the second CNBC Millionaire Survey released Wednesday. Yet if
a vote were held now, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be
the overall favorite.”

*Washington Post: “Just how daunting is the money chase for 2016?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/just-how-daunting-is-the-money-chase-for-2016/2014/12/10/6ca67d1a-800d-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html>*

“For Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she run for president in 2016, money
will not be an issue.”

*Wall Street Journal: “Security Gaps Detailed at American Posts”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-gaps-detailed-at-american-posts-1418170166>*

“State Department investigators discovered numerous security deficiencies
in global hot spots when reviewing U.S. diplomatic facilities in 2012 and
2013, suggesting problems were more widespread than previously known.”

*Blue Nation Review opinion: Allida Black: “Today is Human Rights
Day–Here’s What You Can Do”
<http://bluenationreview.com/human-right-op-ed/>*

“Eleanor Roosevelt dedicated her life to promoting this vision. Hillary
Clinton dedicates her life to implementing it.”

*Business Insider opinion: Business Insider EIC Henry Blodget: “I Know It
Sounds Crazy, But I Don't Think Hillary Clinton Will Be The Next US
President”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/president-hillary-clinton-2014-12>*

“No disrespect to Mrs. Clinton, but I think this consensus is wrong.”

*Articles:*

*Talking Points Memo: “Howard Dean Endorses Hillary While Group He Founded
Pushes For Warren”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/howard-dean-hillary-clinton-2016-elizabeth-warren>*

By Dylan Scott

December 10, 2014, 12:47 p.m. EDT

The day after the grassroots group he founded announced it would help draft
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for a 2016 presidential run, former Vermont
Gov. Howard Dean endorsed Hillary Clinton if she chooses to seek the White
House.

"Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States
to serve as President. If she runs, I will support her," Dean wrote in an
op-ed for Politico magazine titled "I'm Ready for Hillary."

Dean's Clinton endorsement arrived almost simultaneously with Democracy for
America's announcement that it would support efforts to convince Warren to
run, pending its members' approval. Dean remains an active strategic
adviser for the group, which he founded in 2004 ahead of his own
presidential campaign.

Dean and DFA knew what the other planned to do before either went public,
according to a DFA spokesperson, and the group said there are no concerns
about sending conflicting messages. A recent internal DFA poll found that
its members favored Warren over Clinton by nearly 20 points.

"Gov. Dean founded DFA in the hopes that it would be the strong,
people-powered force in the progressive movement it is today," DFA
communications director Neil Sroka told TPM in an email on Wednesday.

"When we both saw the results of our 2016 Presidential Pulse Poll, we both
knew that might lead us to where we are today," he continued. "So, sure,
some beltway folks might be confused, but we're confident our members won't
be and, honestly, that's all that really matters."

Meanwhile, Correct The Record, the American Bridge-affiliated group that is
supporting a Hillary 2016 candidacy, blasted out the Dean endorsement in an
email to reporters.

*ABC News: “Support for Elizabeth Warren Over Hillary Clinton Reveals
Progressive Family Feud”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/support-elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-reveals-progressive-family/story?id=27503628>*

By Shushannah Walshe

December 10, 2014, 1:06 p.m. EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren may be saying no to 2016, but that is not stopping
her supporters and it’s revealing a possible family feud in progressive
politics.

Members of the liberal group MoveOn have voted to draft the Massachusetts
senator with 81.3 percent of those who voted casting the ballot in support
of a draft effort. MoveOn — joined by Democracy or America — said it will
launch their “Run Warren Run” draft effort, which includes spending $1
million in the first phase of the launch and setting up offices in Iowa and
New Hampshire as well as assembling a "national volunteer army" on behalf
of Warren. They are planning on holding their first event in Iowa next week.

Democracy for America’s support shows a schism within the group. They
released a statement after MoveOn’s vote reiterating they would help their
fellow liberals in the draft Warren effort, but Howard Dean — who started
the group — wrote an op-ed today stressing his support for Hillary Clinton.
Neither Clinton nor Warren have said they are running for the Democratic
presidential nomination. Warren has repeatedly said she’s not running and
Clinton has said she’s still deciding.

"Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States
to serve as president. If she runs, I will support her,” Dean, a former
Vermont governor and presidential candidate, wrote in Politico. “We need a
mature, seasoned, thoughtful leader at a time when maturity and
thoughtfulness are increasingly rare commodities in Washington, D.C. If I
have the opportunity, I will cast my vote for Hillary Clinton for
president.”

Dean founded DFA and according to the group still serves in a strategic
advisory role. He originally left the DFA to lead the Democratic National
Committee in 2005 and then Dean’s brother Jim took over DFA and still
serves as chairman of the group.

Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, said in a
statement they “respect” Dean’s “early support” and believe Clinton “would
make a fantastic president and, should she win the nomination, DFA members
will work non-stop to help her make history by becoming our nation's first
woman president.” But they are still endorsing Warren.

Chamberlain cited their supporters backing of Warren in a recent member
survey and added, “We've said from the very beginning of our discussions of
2016 that one of DFA's top priorities will be ensuring that the battle for
the Democratic nomination is a contest, not a coronation. Our members
clearly agree with that priority…and aren't ready to follow the governor's
lead in making an early endorsement of Clinton."

Chamberlain said later today they will ask members to ratify their decision
to join the draft Warren effort.

“Senator Warren's record of standing up to Wall Street and the big banks in
the fight against income inequality is inspiring Americans and progressive
activists nationwide,” Chamberlain said.

MoveOn’s executive director of political action said in a statement after
their vote that their members have “spoken clearly” and beginning today
they are “throwing our full weight behind this Run Warren Run campaign to
show Senator Warren she has the support of millions of Americans across the
country.”

It’s their first presidential draft campaign in their 16 year history and
said their “team-based organizing strategy” is “inspired” by President
Obama's successful "grassroots campaigns." They’ve already launched a “Run
Warren Run” website and video portraying Warren as a fighter for the middle
class.

When MoveOn announced their vote Tuesday and DFA expressed support for the
effort, Warren’s press secretary Lacey Rose said, "As Senator Warren has
said many times, she is not running for president." Warren has said the
same repeatedly herself, but she’s always been careful to phrase it in the
present tense.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Dean, in break from group he founded, backs
Clinton for president”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226598-howard-dean-endorses-hillary-clinton>*

By Peter Sullivan

December 10, 2014, 10:02 a.m. EST

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on
Wednesday, giving her the support of a liberal firebrand at a time when
some liberals are skeptical.

"Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States
to serve as President," Dean wrote in an op-ed in Politico Magazine. "If
she runs, I will support her."

Dean, who caught fire among the liberal base in the 2004 presidential
campaign before ultimately losing the nomination to John Kerry, gives
Clinton support at a time when liberal groups are organinizing to urge Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to challenge Clinton from the left.

Those liberal groups include Democracy for America, which was founded by
Dean himself. On Tuesday, DFA announced that it was asking its members to
vote to join the "Draft Warren" movement begun by another liberal group,
MoveOn.org.

"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 announcing the Draft Warren move.

Neil Sroka, a spokesman for DFA, wrote on Twitter that Dean's op-ed was
placed last week, before DFA's decision to join the Draft Warren effort.

In supporting Clinton, Dean cited Supreme Court appointments, the need for
experience on national security matters, and income inequality.

"Hillary Clinton will not shrink from this challenge," he writes. "In the
coming months, I expect her to lay out her plans to attack income
inequality and help rebuild the middle class. She knows how to sell a broad
range of Americans on these policies, and has shown how to stand up against
extremist economic policies."

Income inequality is the main issue spurring liberal groups to look for an
alternative to Clinton. Dean acknowledges: "I am sure I will have
disagreements with her as she focuses on getting Americans back to work and
rebuilding an America that works for all of us."

However, he writes, "We need a mature, seasoned, thoughtful leader at a
time when maturity and thoughtfulness are increasingly rare commodities in
Washington, D.C."

Dean said in August that he is a "huge Hillary Clinton fan."

That was a shift from June 2013, when he told CNN that he was considering a
run of his own, and said of Clinton, "She is not going to have a pass,"
Dean said. "There will be other people who will run."

*The Week blog: Speed Reads: “Howard Dean endorses Hillary Clinton for
president: 'We need a mature, seasoned' leader”
<http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/273394/speedreads-howard-dean-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-we-need-a-mature-seasoned-leader>*

By Jon Terbush

December 10, 2014, 9:03 a.m. EST

Calling her "by far the most qualified person" for the job, former
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday he was
throwing his support behind Hillary Clinton in 2016.

In a Politico op-ed, Dean cited three major reasons for his support.
Clinton, he wrote, understands the "institutional requirements" of the
Supreme Court and would appoint worthy judges; she has a sterling record at
the State Department; and she would address income inequality.

"We need a mature, seasoned, thoughtful leader at a time when maturity and
thoughtfulness are increasingly rare commodities in Washington, D.C.," he
wrote.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: Chris Cillizza: “Howard Dean makes the
liberal’s case for Hillary Clinton. It’s only ok.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/howard-dean-makes-the-liberals-case-for-hillary-clinton-its-ok/>*

By Chris Cillizza

December 10, 2014, 9:36 a.m. EST

Liberals aren't in love with the idea of anointing Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic nominee for president in 2016. And now they are doing something
about it -- launching an active (and well financed) effort to draft
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the presidential race this week.

All of which makes the timing of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's Politico
op-ed Wednesday morning formally endorsing Clinton's not-yet-announced
presidential campaign very, very interesting.  Dean became a hero to the
left during his 2004 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, a bid
largely premised on his staunch opposition to the war in Iraq.  Over the
intervening decade, Dean has remained an anti-establishment,
speak-truth-to-power type and remains influential among a certain segment
of liberal activists.

Dean's op-ed, then, is rightly read as a sort of "liberal's case for
Hillary Clinton" and a way of pushing back against the rising Warren tide.
(Remember that Dean has been in favor of Clinton's presidential campaign
for a while now. "If she is president, which I hope she is, I think she is
going to be a terrific president," he told CNN back in July.)

The thrust of Dean's piece is that Democrats badly need another Democratic
president because of rightward movement of the Supreme Court in recent
years. Writes Dean:

“America needs a thoughtful President who will appoint judges and justices
who will stand up for the Constitution and the law instead of catering to
the dictates of those who fund the right-wing Federalist Society. I am
confident that Hillary Clinton will provide that leadership.”

That's a stone-cold winner argument to liberals who believe the Roberts
Court has drastically overreached in its decisions -- "this Court has
repeatedly made decisions that have harmed our country for the sake of
extending a political and ideological agenda," according to Dean --
especially on matters of campaign finance and voting rights.

With Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 81) and Stephen Breyer (76) -- both
appointees of Bill Clinton -- aging, there is considerable awareness (and
concern) in liberal circles about how a Republican president could remake
the Court for a lifetime if elected in 2016. Dean is playing to those
fears, making the argument that Clinton, as a Democrat, is better than any
Republican president when it comes to picking the next members of the
Supreme Court.

Dean makes a similar argument when it comes to the pet issue of Warren (and
the left): income inequality. Again, Dean: "In the coming months, I expect
[Clinton] to lay out her plans to attack income inequality and help rebuild
the middle class. She knows how to sell a broad range of Americans on these
policies, and has shown how to stand up against extremist economic
policies." What Dean stays entirely away from is talking about Clinton's
ties to Wall Street, a major point of contention in the eyes of  liberals.

What Dean argues broadly in the op-ed is that Clinton is the best choice
among the candidates who are a) running and b) can win. It's a
see-the-forest-through-the-tree argument; no, Clinton isn't the candidate
liberals would dream up in a political laboratory but she is a heck of a
lot better than the Republican alternatives out there. "I value and respect
her enough that whatever differences may exist will be minimal compared to
the tasks we really need to do for the good of restoring our country,"
writes Dean.

It remains to be seen whether the she's-not-perfect-but-she's-pretty good
case for Clinton will be enough to convince liberals to stop actively
looking for someone who fits their beliefs better. (It may not matter how
convincing Dean is if Warren, who has said she isn't running and signed a
letter urging Clinton to run, doesn't change her mind.) No matter what,
however, that Dean felt the need to reiterate his support for Clinton and
make the case for why other liberals should (or at least could) be for her
is a telling indication of the nervousness among allies of the former
Secretary of State about the possibility of a liberal uprising complicating
her coronation for the nomination.

*The Blaze: “Howard Dean Throws His Support Behind Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/10/howard-dean-throws-his-support-behind-hillary-clinton/>*

By Fred Lucas

December 10, 2014, 9:45 a.m. EST

Hillary Clinton hasn’t said whether she’s running in 2016, but she has an
early backer in former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

“Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States
to serve as president. If she runs, I will support her,” the former
Democratic National Committee chairman wrote in an op-ed for Politico.

A Clinton presidential campaign is expected to face contention from the
progressive wing of the Democratic party; Dean ran as an anti-establishment
Democrat in the 2004 presidential race.

“I am sure I will have disagreements with her as she focuses on getting
Americans back to work and rebuilding an America that works for all of us,”
Dean wrote. “I value and respect her enough that whatever differences may
exist will be minimal compared to the tasks we really need to do for the
good of restoring our country. We need a mature, seasoned, thoughtful
leader at a time when maturity and thoughtfulness are increasingly rare
commodities in Washington, D.C.”

Dean was the frontrunner for a time in a crowded Democratic primary field
in the lead-up to the 2004 election because of his opposition to the war in
Iraq. After a disappointing showing in the Iowa caucus, he infamously
bellowed the “Dean scream” that haunted the rest of his ill-fated campaign.

Dean has long been a key figure among the more progressive Democrats, many
of whom have expressed support for a bid by Massachusetts Democratic Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, or Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Dean said it’s important that Clinton be elected in order to fill future
Supreme Court vacancies.

“One of the most important reasons I am supporting her is because Secretary
Clinton understands the institutional requirements of the Supreme Court,”
Dean wrote. “More than 73 percent of Americans think the Supreme Court is
no longer a fair arbitrator and is influenced by political considerations.
I am one of those 73 percent. This court has repeatedly made decisions that
have harmed our country for the sake of extending a political and
ideological agenda that is far outside the mainstream of American
traditions — on issues like campaign finance, voting rights, the rights of
women and religious freedom.

“America needs a thoughtful president who will appoint judges and justices
who will stand up for the Constitution and the law instead of catering to
the dictates of those who fund the right-wing Federalist Society,” Dean
continued. “I am confident that Hillary Clinton will provide that
leadership.”

*Bloomberg column: Al Hunt: “Young Voters Don't Care How Old Hillary Is”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-10/young-voters-dont-care-how-old-hillary-is>*

By Albert R. Hunt

December 10, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run for president, would be among the
oldest contenders for the office. Nonetheless, she has strong appeal among
younger Americans.

The former secretary of state, who will be 69 on Election Day 2016, beats
five of her most prominent possible Republican rivals among voters
18-to-29, in some cases by as much as a 2-to-1 margin, according to a new
Bloomberg Politics poll. Senator Rand Paul runs strongest against her among
these voters, though he still loses by a 3-to-2 margin.

Younger people, perhaps not surprisingly, say the most important quality
for a presidential candidate is a vision for the future. On this question,
Clinton routs her Republican rivals among younger Americans. They prefer
her to Mitt Romney, for example, by 56 percent to 36 percent.

Romney is seven months older than Clinton. The other possible Republican
candidates -- Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz -- are five
to more than 20 years younger.

Age hasn't emerged as a significant impediment to winning the youth vote in
presidential contests.

"There is little reason to believe that younger people prefer young
candidates," says Peter Levine, a professor at Tufts University's Center on
Civic Learning and Engagement.

Young voters have been more dependably Democratic in recent elections. In
the last presidential race, Barack Obama won 60 percent of 18-to-29
year-olds, according to Election Day exit polls.

Republicans did slightly better in the November midterm congressional
contests, when they lost the youth vote 54 percent to 43 percent.

Some caveats: At this early stage of the presidential election cycle,
younger Americans tend to be a little less informed and potentially more
prone to switching allegiances. And turnout is uncertain: voters under 30
comprised 19 percent of the electorate in the last presidential race. In
November, they accounted for just 13 percent. In this year's exit polls,
Hillary Clinton didn't do as well as she does in the Bloomberg politics
survey.

Still, her standing with 18-to-29 year olds is impressive. She is viewed
favorably by this cohort by better than a 3-to-2 margin, considerably
better than her standing among people 30 or older.

Similarly, her greatest advantage in head-to-head matchups and on the
vision issue is with those under 30. On a vision for the future, the
Republican who comes closest is Paul, a libertarian who has appealed to
younger voters on privacy and other issues. He still ranks 15 points behind
Clinton.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Ready for Warren to Clinton supporters: 'It's
about to get real'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226641-ready-for-warren-to-hillary-its-about-to-get-real>*

By Kevin Cirilli

December 10, 2014, 1:08 p.m. EST

Ready For Warren has a message to Hillary Clinton about 2016: "It's about
to get real."

In a fundraising email sent to supporters, the progressive group that is
urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president touted their
recent endorsement from liberal heavyweight MoveOn.org.

"MoveOn joining the draft Warren movement is a game changer for 2016," said
Erika Sagrans, Ready For Warren campaign manager. "We’re seeing a
groundswell of momentum as more and more Americans see that Elizabeth
Warren is a fearless progressive champion who can take on Wall Street and
win for working families. And that’s exactly what she’ll do as president."

Warren has insisted that she's not running for president, but the recent
news that MoveOn.org — as well as Democracy For America — would be backing
the freshman senator has liberals hoping she'll change her mind.

Former Secretary of State Clinton has dominated early polling, but many
liberals are concerned that Clinton is too centrist and too close to Wall
Street.

The New York Times reported Sunday that MoveOn.org will invest $1 million
into Ready For Warren, which Warren's own attorneys denounced in August,
saying they had nothing to do with its creation.

MoveOn.org will also provide volunteers out of their millions of members as
the kick-off to the 2016 presidential cycle is just months away.

"With MoveOn on board, things will only get bigger from here. They're
making a major investment — including staff and resources, as well as the
might of their millions of members," Ready For Warren officials wrote in a
fundraising email. "All of this is more proof of what we already knew: This
is Elizabeth Warren's moment. As a friend of mine said to me yesterday:
'It's about to get real.'"

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: Aaron Blake: “Hillary Clinton is the
ultimate Washington insider. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/hillary-clinton-is-the-ultimate-washington-insider-thats-not-necessarily-a-bad-thing/>*

By Aaron Blake

December 10, 2014, 11:38 a.m. EST

If there's one thing we learned in the last few elections, it's that people
hate Washington. And being associated with Washington is a huge political
liability.

Right? Well, maybe not.

Witness this data from Bloomberg's latest poll. The poll asked people about
several aspects of Hillary Clinton's resume, and whether they thought each
was a plus or a minus.

[DATA]

Almost all of these statements are some variation on Clinton being a D.C.
insider. And Clinton gets positive marks on each of them. She even gets
positive marks for "She has close ties to Wall Street," which is a
statement that could just as easily appear in an attack ad against Hillary
Clinton.

Clinton's best marks, in fact, are on the only statement actually
mentioning Washington: "She has lived in Washington and worked in the
federal government"; 78 percent say that's an advantage, versus just 20
percent who said it's a disadvantage. And despite President Obama's
approval rating being around 40 percent, about six in 10 Americans say
Clinton's work in the Obama Administration is a good thing for her.

Clinton's overall favorable rating in the poll, we would point out, is 52
percent. In other words, plenty of people who otherwise don't really like
her think her lengthy career in government and insider status is a feather
in her cap rather than a liability.

Those numbers call into question whether it's really a bad thing to be a
"Washington insider." We suspect it is a bad thing when the candidates
aren't very well-known. In that case, voting for the non-Washington
candidate is the easiest way to show your contempt for Congress. When it's
businessman David Perdue versus Congressman Jack Kingston in the Georgia
GOP Senate runoff, that "congressman" label probably isn't helpful to
people who don't really know Kingston. (We have made this argument before
in regards whether the Republican Party would actually nominate a confirmed
tea partier for president. We were dubious.)

When it comes to someone like Clinton, though, it's hard to argue that her
being a Washington insider -- or even another Clinton, for that matter --
is a massive problem for her.

In fact, this poll suggests it just might help.

*NBC News: “Who Do the Wealthy Want for President? Hillary”
<http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/who-do-wealthy-want-president-hillary-n265541>*

By Robert Frank

December 10, 2014, 11:51 a.m. EST

Millionaires are sharply divided on their choice for the next president,
according to the second CNBC Millionaire Survey released Wednesday. Yet if
a vote were held now, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be
the overall favorite.

The survey polled 500 people with investable assets of $1 million or more,
which represents the top 8 percent of American households. According to the
survey—a poll evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and
Independents—Hillary Clinton is the top choice for 31 percent of
millionaires, including 23 percent of Independent millionaires and 5
percent of Republican millionaires. Respondents got to choose among nine
potential candidates in the survey: Clinton; Senator Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.); Vice President Joe Biden; Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.);
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas); Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); former Governor
Jeb Bush (R-Fla.); Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Governor Scott Walker
(R-Wis.). Clinton gets the support of 38 percent of women millionaires and
27 percent of male millionaires. Among male millionaires of both parties,
Hillary is the top choice, with 27 percent. Jeb Bush comes in second among
millionaires, with 18 percent. But among Republican millionaires, the
former Republican Florida governor is far and away the top choice, with 36
percent support.

*Washington Post: “Just how daunting is the money chase for 2016?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/just-how-daunting-is-the-money-chase-for-2016/2014/12/10/6ca67d1a-800d-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html>*

By Dan Balz

December 10, 2014, 9:29 a.m. EST

Elections should be about voters — their issues, their worries, their
questions. Instead, elections increasingly have become about donors —
courting them, corralling them and depending on them.

For Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she run for president in 2016, money
will not be an issue. For the large and unsettled field of Republicans, it
is — at least for now — almost everything. For the next year, raising the
money needed to go the distance in a competitive nomination contest and
beyond will be among the highest of priorities.

By the time of the 2016 election, the two major party nominees will have
raised more than $1 billion. But securing the nomination, just to get to
the general election, will require raising in excess of $100 million.

Spencer Zwick, who ran Mitt Romney’s strong fundraising operation in 2012,
said, “It’s just as hard to raise $100 million for the primary as it will
be to raise $1 billion for the general. . . . In the primary, every
contribution you get, you are asking for it. You’re working a lot harder
for those dollars.”

My colleagues Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger reported that, by some
estimates, the leading candidate or candidates for the nomination will need
to raise as much as $75 million to make it past the first round of
primaries and caucuses early next year. Some back-of-the-envelope math
shows what awaits the field.

Assume for now that everyone opened for business on Jan. 1, and therefore
would have about 425 days to raise money through the end of February 2016.
To hit $75 million would mean raising about $176,000 a day, every day, for
the entire period.

Assume again that the contribution limit for individuals will be about
$2,700 for the 2016 cycle. That equates to finding 65 maxed-out donors on
each of those 425 days (or alternatively, sparking a prairie fire among
small donors on the Internet).

It becomes more daunting, however, when you look at prospective timetables
for getting into the race. Few candidates appear to be in a rush to form
committees that would allow fundraising to begin. Many are talking about
announcing late in the first quarter or perhaps at some point in the second
quarter, although the timing of establishing a fundraising committee and
formal candidacy announcement could be different.

Romney did not set up his presidential committee until the second quarter
of 2011, and by the end of January 2012 had raised about $60 million in
individual contributions, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
If a candidate set a target of raising $60 million by the end of February
2016, starting on the first day of the second quarter or 2015, that would
mean having to raise about $179,000 a day, or 66 maxed-out donors every day.

There are alternative ways of trying to survive and prosper. Rick Santorum,
a former senator from Pennsylvania, burrowed into Iowa in 2011, living off
the land, as it were. In all of 2011, he raised just $2 million. Yet, when
the count was eventually completed, he ended up winning the Iowa caucuses,
defeating Romney by the narrowest of margins.

Spurred by his success in Iowa, Santorum raised $4 million in January 2012.
But it wasn’t until he won three contests in a single day in February 2012
that his fundraising caught fire. As Romney’s leading challenger, he raised
$9 million in February and then $5 million in March. By the time he ended
his campaign in the late spring, he had raised a total of just $22 million.

Romney eventually would raise about $112 million in individual
contributions through May 2012, at which point the nomination was locked
up. His nearest competitor, in terms of money raised, was then-Rep. Ron
Paul (Tex.), with $39 million. Paul had significant success raising
grass-roots money, which could become the model for his son, Sen. Rand Paul
(Ky.), should he run in 2016. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.),
with $23 million, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, with $19 million, completed
the top five in money raised.

Another way to look at it is Romney vs. the field. For the nomination
contest, Romney’s challengers raised $137 million to his $112 million. In
2011 alone, Romney raised $55 million. His competitors raised a combined
$95 million. The total pot of money contributed to Republican candidates in
those 12 months was $148 million.

There’s nothing to suggest that there will substantially more available for
the candidates between now and when the primaries and caucuses begin in
2016. Even if there were a 10 to 15 percent increase, that’s not a lot when
divided among the number of candidates who are thinking about running.

If it takes $75 million to come out of the first round of contests as the
leader and the total pot is only $150 million to $175 million by then,
there will be a few haves and more have-nots. Others who are not favored by
the donor class of the Republican Party or are not capable of building a
grassroots donor army could be at a significant disadvantage.

Some candidates will do well with the big-money crowd, although history
suggests that one of them will do significantly better than the others.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, should he run, could be that candidate,
or perhaps New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, although the Securities and
Exchange Commission’s pay-to-play rule would limit his Wall Street
contributions. Perry was an effective fundraiser during his brief
candidacy, but could have trouble maintaining his Texas donor base once
he’s out of office. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has one of the biggest
lists of donors — big and small — of any Republican.

All this points to increased reliance by all those thinking of running on
the alternative way to finance presidential campaigns, which is through the
creation of candidate-centric super PACs, which are allowed to take
contributions of unlimited size. Finding a financial angel or two who will
bankroll a super PAC could be just as important as building a donor network
to underwrite a candidacy.

The 2012 campaign was the first in which candidate-specific super PACs
played a big role. Romney had the biggest by far, but Gingrich and Santorum
were aided significantly by the existence of their own super PACs, funded
in large part by individual donors (Sheldon Adelson for Gingrich; Foster
Friese for Santorum).

Center for Public Integrity’s reports on those super PACs tell an
interesting story. Gingrich’s super PAC, Winning Our Future, raised about
$23 millionand spent about $17 million on independent expenditure ads — $13
million on ads advocating for Gingrich and $4 million attacking Romney.
Santorum’s super PAC, the Red, White & Blue Fund, raised about $8.5 million
and spent $7.5 million on independent expenditure ads, almost all of it on
ads advocating for the former senator.

Meanwhile, Romney’s super PAC, Restore Our Future, spent $19 million on
attacking Gingrich when he posed a threat to the former Massachusetts
governor, and then, when Santorum became the leading challenger, spent $21
million on attacking the former senator. Put another way, Romney’s super
PAC (not counting what Romney’s campaign did) spent almost as much money
attacking Santorum as Santorum raised for his entire campaign.

Major donors will get a lot of attention in the coming months, more than is
warranted. The scramble for money will start to stratify and possibly
winnow the field long before voters get a chance to weigh in. That’s hardly
an ideal system.

*Wall Street Journal: “Security Gaps Detailed at American Posts”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-gaps-detailed-at-american-posts-1418170166>*

By James V. Grimaldi and Peter Nicholas

December 9, 2014, 10:25 p.m. EST

State Department investigators discovered numerous security deficiencies in
global hot spots when reviewing U.S. diplomatic facilities in 2012 and
2013, suggesting problems were more widespread than previously known.

Inspections of five newly opened compounds in 2012 found failings that
included deviations from security standards, along with design,
construction and maintenance flaws.

Such problems “could be exploited to compromise the safety of post
personnel and property,” said a review that was part of seven audits
conducted by the office of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.

The review, which hadn’t been made public before, was undertaken from April
to October 2012, toward the end of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of
state. It provides the best snapshot of security when the U.S. compound in
Benghazi, Libya, was attacked in September 2012, leading to the deaths of
four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Congressional panels investigating the Benghazi attacks concluded that
State Department officials didn’t beef up security despite requests from
diplomats in Libya. The reviews suggest such problems went well beyond
Benghazi.

Security lapses at U.S. embassies are a point of vulnerability for Mrs.
Clinton should she run for president. GOP lawmakers and activists have
sought to tie her explicitly to security failures.

“The inspector general’s findings reveal that on Secretary Clinton’s watch,
security lapses were widely prevalent in the most dangerous posts in the
world, not just isolated to the failures that precipitated the attack in
Benghazi,” said Tim Miller, executive director of America Rising, a group
that opposes a potential Clinton candidacy. The group’s open-records
requests led to unsealing of parts of the previously classified reports.

Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman referred questions to the State Department.

Mrs. Clinton, who stepped down as secretary of state in 2013, has described
Benghazi as the biggest regret of her four-year tenure and has said she
accepts broad responsibility for the tragedy. She has also said security
decisions were made by people with more expertise and that her critics are
exploiting the issue for political gain.

“Of course, there are a lot of reasons why, despite all of the hearings,
all of the information that’s been provided, some choose not to be
satisfied and choose to continue to move forward,” she said in May during a
public appearance.

The location of the facilities, all deemed at high risk of terrorism, mob
action or political unrest, are blacked out in the report the inspector
general’s office released. Many of the deficiencies were fixed by
ambassadors and consuls general after the review started, the report said.

“Posts have concentric and overlapping security measures,” said a State
Department spokesman. “So when the [Office of Inspector General] finds
deficiencies, it is not fair to extrapolate that the post is insecure.”

Mr. Linick was set to testify Wednesday at a hearing by the House Select
Committee on Benghazi. Of 77 security recommendations he has made since
Benghazi, just five remain unresolved, according to a tally by the office.

In a separate 2013 Inspector General audit, which also hadn’t been
previously reported, investigators said the U.S. Embassy and consulates in
Pakistan had inadequate emergency plans in the event of a terrorist attack
or political unrest, including deficient firefighting capabilities.

Many of those security breaches in Pakistan were fixed after the internal
review was under way. A State Department spokesman said new firefighting
equipment has been ordered.

During the Pakistan inspection, investigators found sensitive documents
improperly secured, and in one instance, materials stamped “sensitive”
stacked on a floor because of a shortage of filing cabinets. These problems
are similar to ones found during related inspections in Libya and
Afghanistan.

In one of the reports, investigators found fault with how U.S. Marines were
deployed to provide additional security. Of 154 overseas posts that had
Marines in 2012, 110 had medium or low threat ratings. It isn’t clear why
Marines were posted to less-threatening facilities because the
documentation was “deficient,” the report said.

The State Department committed an estimated $90 million to send Marines to
six lower-threat posts, while some high-threat posts remain without a
Marine detachment, the report said.

*Blue Nation Review opinion: Allida Black: “Today is Human Rights
Day–Here’s What You Can Do”
<http://bluenationreview.com/human-right-op-ed/>*

By Allida Black

December 10, 2014

Today is International Human Rights Day, which marks the anniversary of the
adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948.
Crafted in the shadow of the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II, the
Declaration gave the world the vision it needed to stand up to fear and the
blueprint it craved to build a safer and more just world.

It is a bold document, based on a single premise – that the “recognition of
the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world.” Eleanor Roosevelt, who led the drafting and adoption of the
Declaration, understood that we are all members of the human family, and
that for governments to prosper and wars to cease, we must treat each other
with the same respect and candor that we treat our own families. She knew
this would not be easy or popular and that she would be accused of
championing ideals that could never be achieved. But she persisted; knowing
that without ideals, politics and policy are merely power games without a
soul.

She urged America and the world to recognize that human rights “begin in
small places, close to home…the places where every man, woman and child
seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without
discrimination.” And that “unless these rights have meaning there, they
have little meaning anywhere.” But she also knew that rights come with
responsibilities. For rights to exist here and around the world, we must
recognize, implement, and defend them. As she often argued: “Without
concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in
vain for progress in the larger world.”

Eleanor Roosevelt dedicated her life to promoting this vision. Hillary
Clinton dedicates her life to implementing it. It is not simple work. “Our
challenge,” Hillary wrote in “Hard Choices,” “is to be clear eyed about the
world as it is while never losing sight of the world as we want it to be.”

From the White House to the halls of the Senate and the State Department,
Hillary strove to make these ideals a vibrant part of American domestic and
foreign policy. Sometimes she did it with bold pronouncements on the world
stage as she did in Beijing when she declared that “women’s rights are
human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.”

Sometimes she did it by creating departments like the Global Office of
Women’s Issues or elevating the State Department’s human rights office.
Other times she did it in hundreds of quiet meetings with human rights
activists and dozens of town hall meetings she held in communities from
Argentina to Pakistan to South Korea. These conversations were not easy.
Some leaders feared for their lives, others for their families, and others
challenged Hillary to do more than she could possibly do. But she did not
shy away from them. Indeed, she sought them out – even when she could do no
more than lend the power of her position and her stature to their defense.

But three examples stand out.

In 2011, Ugandan thugs killed David Kato, a gay rights activist, and the
Ugandan minister of ethics and integrity announced that “homosexuals can
forget about human rights.” Rather than just mourn David and issue a formal
rebuke, Hillary decided to confront, head on, the targeting of LGBT people
sweeping Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Iran, and Russia.

She decided to return to Geneva, home of the United Nations Human Rights
Council and thousands of global diplomats, on International Human Rights
Day. Before an overflow audience, in remarks streamed live around the
world, she confronted this outrageous behavior. LGBT people are part of the
world’s family. “Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious,
tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And
that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

In 2012, in the middle of our nation’s most intense economic negotiations
with China, Hillary had an unexpected, stark choice to make. One of China’s
most famous dissidents, the blind Chinese human rights activist Chen
Guangcheng, had made a daring midnight escape from the guards surrounding
his home, to seek sanctuary in the U.S. Mission. He did not know if he
wanted to leave China and he had broken his foot during his flight. He
called the Beijing Mission, which then called Hillary in the middle of the
night. Hillary had worked hard to develop candid and productive
relationships with the Chinese ministers so she knew how the Chinese would
react and the damage the news of Chen’s escape could do to the summit. But
she wanted to help Chen. She instructed embassy staff to find him, bring
him in, and give him medical care. The Chinese were shocked, but Hillary
kept them at the table, the summit continued, and Chen enrolled in a New
York law school. His family came with him.

At home, America reels from the tragic deaths of Michael Brown and Eric
Garner. A bitterly divided nation once again questions whether justice is
possible and whether different races can pierce the divides that separate
and stereotype them. As protests erupted across the nation, Hillary
challenged us not to lose sight of our common humanity. “I know that a lot
of hearts are breaking, and we are asking ourselves, ‘Aren’t these our
sons? Aren’t these our brothers?’ The most important thing each of us can
do is to try even harder to see the world through our neighbors’ eyes. To
imagine what it is like to walk in their shoes, to share their pain and
their hopes and their dreams. These tragedies did not happen in some
far-away place. They didn’t happen to some other people. These are our
streets, our children, our fellow Americans, and our grief. We are all in
this together, we can all do better.”

We can do better. That’s what human rights mean.

Eleanor Roosevelt believed it and Hillary knows it. It is hard, tiring
work. It takes the courage to dream, the political skills necessary to
implement the dream, and a heart fierce enough to continue the struggle. On
this day, let us recommit. Let us hear Hillary’s call. We must “never rest
on [our] laurels. Never quit. Never stop working to make the world a better
place. That’s our unfinished business.”

*Business Insider opinion: Business Insider EIC Henry Blodget: “I Know It
Sounds Crazy, But I Don't Think Hillary Clinton Will Be The Next US
President”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/president-hillary-clinton-2014-12>*

By Henry Blodget

December 10, 2014

For the past couple of years, it has been viewed as almost a fait accompli
that Hillary Clinton will be the next US president.

All the polls show her drubbing all known opponents. All the pundits seem
to regard her as a shoo-in. Even Clinton's fundraisers seem to regard their
biggest challenge as persuading donors that she does not have a lock on the
election, thus emphasizing the need for these donors to give.

No disrespect to Mrs. Clinton, but I think this consensus is wrong.

I do not say this as a political expert. I am not a political expert. I am
just an American. For fun, though, I just bet a political expert, former
Editor in Chief of Slate Jacob Weisberg, that Clinton won't win. Jacob took
the bet instantly and says he is looking forward to my buying him lunch in
early November 2016.

To be clear:

Hillary Clinton is supremely well-qualified to be President. She has strong
experience, she's smart and capable, and she would probably do a great job.
She is widely and deservedly respected and admired. She also has deep
connections and an immense and talented political machine, one that has
been gearing up for her campaign for years.

But despite this, unless the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and
nominate a champion of the extreme right, I don't think she'll get the job.

Why not?

Four reasons, none of which are insurmountable, two of which are
politically incorrect:

1) Age

2) Gender

3) Track record, baggage, and wonkiness

4) Relative lack of charmingness and likeability

A few words on each:

Age. If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, she will be the one
of the oldest President Elects ever. Only Ronald Reagan was older.
According to this chart from Wikipedia, the average age of incoming
Presidents is 54. Hillary Clinton would be 69. Ronald Reagan was also 69.
And by the end of his second term, he was viewed as very old. (I'm not
saying age should be a factor. I'm just saying it likely will be.)

Gender. Someday, happily, a woman will be President of the United States.
Also happily, I think the country is finally ready to elect a woman as
President. But across business and politics, it's still harder for women to
get to the top. I think that cracking this final glass ceiling will likely
take a very strong candidate. I don't think Hillary Clinton will be strong
enough in 2016. (Again, I'm not saying gender should be a factor. I'm
saying it likely will be.)

Track record, baggage, and wonkiness. History has shown that experience and
wonkiness are not necessarily assets in American Presidential elections. On
the contrary, they are often liabilities. Al Gore had tremendous
experience. It worked against him in the election, as did his voting record
and wonkiness. (Americans chose the candidate who had no Federal voting
record -- and, thus, nothing to shoot at -- the candidate they would rather
get a beer with, President Bush.) Similarly, the candidate who eventually
trumped Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries, President Barack Obama, also
had limited experience. But he was more charming and better at connecting
with voters than Clinton was (see below). Lastly, a Clinton candidacy will
be seen as "more of the same," and given President Obama's approval
ratings, that may not be a good thing.

Relative lack of inherent charmingness and likeability. Hillary Clinton has
radically improved her public speaking prowess and campaigning ability over
the years, and millions of Americans are crazy about her. But she still
struggles to forge an emotional connection with average voters. This
natural magnetism was her husband's greatest strength, and it propelled him
to two election victories despite other flaws. As talented and sharp as she
is, Hillary Clinton does not share this strength, and it leaves her exposed
to more charismatic candidates.

I like and admire Hillary Clinton. I would be happy to consider voting for
her (as yet, I'm "undecided.") I just don't think she'll win the 2016
election unless the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot.