Subject: Correct The Record Friday December 12, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:14:04 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday December 12, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*National Journal: “Clinton Supporters Don't Mind Waiting for a Campaign
Kickoff”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-supporters-don-t-mind-waiting-for-a-campaign-kickoff-20141211>*

“December 11, 2014 Hillary Clinton is keeping her closest supporters
waiting for any sign of a presidential campaign announcement. But they
don't mind it at all.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton: Why Wait to
Announce 2016 Bid?”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/12/hillary-clinton-why-wait-to-announce-2016-bid/>*

“It all suggests a Hillary Clinton presidential bid is under way. Only
there’s no candidate.”

*Slate: “Down and Out”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_extraordinary_the_party.html>*

“Democrats might have strong national prospects in the form of Hillary
Clinton, but they have little to look to in the states.”

*CNN: “Torture report splits 2016 Democrats”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/2016-democrats-torture/index.html>*

“A Clinton spokesman has not responded to emails asking for comment after
the release of the report.”

*Politico: “Bill Clinton: Let’s push for more info on CIA torture”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/bill-clinton-cia-torture-113523.html>*

“Former President Bill Clinton is backing the release of a report
documenting the CIA’s use of torture after the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the
country should ‘keep pushing’ to find out more about what happened.”

*Bloomberg: “Welcome to the Democrats' Post-Obama Family Feud”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-12/welcome-to-the-democrats-postobama-family-feud>*

“It's turning out to be an awkward week for the Dean family. As former
Vermont Governor Howard Dean announced Wednesday that he would back a
Hillary Clinton presidential bid, the progressive group he founded declared
that they were launching a major campaign to coax Massachusetts Senator
Elizabeth Warren into the race.”

*National Journal: “Elizabeth Warren: The GOP's New Favorite Foil”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/elizabeth-warren-the-gop-s-new-favorite-foil-20141211>*

“With congressional compromises collapsing all around them and facing a
pending government shutdown, Republicans are testing a new message: Blame
it all on Elizabeth Warren.”

*Boston Globe: “Mass. group hopes to give Clinton a headstart”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/12/11/mass-group-hopes-give-clinton-headstart/WaIrJmI3QZj9AswwY0D0AK/story.html>*

“Now, a new entrant from Massachusetts: Sign for Hillary. The online
venture, which went live Thursday afternoon, has a very specific mission:
giving Clinton a headstart on the laborious process of collecting
signatures to get on the ballot in Democratic primaries all over the
country.”

*Politico: “Backers: Romney more open to 2016 run”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/mitt-romney-2016-run-113518.html>*

“For most of the past year, Mitt Romney supporters have publicly said he
should consider running again. And for most of the past year, Romney has
seemed uninterested. Until recently.”

*Politico: “Ex-Obama aide makes Warren-2016 push”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/christopher-hass-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-113524.html>*

“The onetime aide, Christopher Hass, has circulated the letter on an Obama
alumni email group and said it will be released on Friday.”

*Articles:*

*National Journal: “Clinton Supporters Don't Mind Waiting for a Campaign
Kickoff”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-supporters-don-t-mind-waiting-for-a-campaign-kickoff-20141211>*

By Emily Schultheis

December 11, 2014

[Subtitle:] Absence makes the heart grow fonder for the former secretary of
State.

December 11, 2014 Hillary Clinton is keeping her closest supporters waiting
for any sign of a presidential campaign announcement. But they don't mind
it at all.

Clinton's decision to accept paid speeches as late as March of next year is
sending the message to leading Democratic operatives that a possible
campaign announcement may not come until next spring. And as Clinton delays
the seemingly inevitable decision, she's receiving surprisingly little
blowback from Democratic activists who usually are spoiling for intra-party
competition.

Democratic operatives in both Iowa and New Hampshire say that Clinton's
high national name ID, residual support, and organization from 2008 along
with the efforts of the pro-Clinton group Ready for Hillary mean there's
really no downside to the former secretary of State taking as much time as
she needs before entering the 2016 race.

"Hillary Clinton is going to do what Hillary Clinton is going to do, and
everyone is just going to react to it when that happens," said Norm
Sterzenbach, an Iowa Democratic strategist. "She could get in at almost any
time over the next six to seven months and would still be the
front-runner.… I don't think it really changes much for her."

Earlier this week, Clinton accepted an invitation to speak to the New York
and New Jersey chapter of the American Camp Association on March 19, which
has led to speculation that any campaign announcement won't come until late
March. She also has scheduled paid speeches for Jan. 21 in Canada and Feb.
24 in the San Francisco Bay Area.

For Clinton's eventual campaign, the benefits of a later announcement are
obvious: If she isn't a candidate, it's harder for people to treat her like
one—and easier for her to not answer specific policy questions she'd rather
avoid. Earlier this month, she gave the keynote address at the League of
Conservation Voters dinner in New York without discussing whether she
supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The earlier she gets in, of course, the earlier her supporters can begin
organizing in an official way—and nowhere is that more important than in
the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. These
states are used to starting early, and many supporters are itching to start
mobilizing for a Clinton campaign.

But in the meantime, the Ready for Hillary super PAC fills that void—and
has been giving Clinton backers a place to go since 2013. Supporters of
Clinton say the group has helped keep potential Clinton backers engaged and
involved—and kept them from looking elsewhere in the time before Clinton's
decision is announced.

"Ready for Hillary has helped give Secretary Clinton the luxury of time,"
said Jerry Crawford, a longtime Clinton supporter who advises Ready for
Hillary. "It has kept some of the pressure off in terms of moving quickly
into campaign mode."

The group sent more than two dozen staffers to key midterm states,
including Iowa and New Hampshire, earlier this fall. It has had advisers
and volunteers in key presidential states for more than a year, who have
been holding house parties and organizational events to bring more people
on board. As a result, the group has signed up "tens of thousands" of
supporters in Iowa alone.

"I think people would be getting antsy now if there were no Ready for
Hillary," said Terry Shumaker, another longtime Clinton backer who advises
the group in New Hampshire. "[Even in 2013] there was this pent-up desire,
in New Hampshire particularly, where the Clintons have many supporters, to
do something to encourage her to run. Ready for Hillary has been able to
channel that energy in a very positive way."

Should Clinton choose a later announcement, she'd be helped by the fact
that presidential campaign activity in both parties seems to be holding off
until at least early next year. With the exception of Sen. Jim Webb of
Virginia, who formed an exploratory committee last month, no 2016 hopeful
has made formal moves to enter the race yet—and some even say it will be
late spring or summer before they do anything official.

That said, the idea of a spring announcement from Clinton does scramble the
typical calculus for candidates in these states, some operatives said. In
Iowa, for example, prospective candidates usually start forming exploratory
committees on the January before the caucuses, staffing up in the state and
making trips out.

At this point, several Democrats have made pilgrimages to Iowa and New
Hampshire; however, the only Democrat who has logged regular trips to the
early states and begun doing the legwork for a bid is Maryland Gov. Martin
O'Malley. Still, the absence of additional intra-party competition—which
Clinton faced in 2008 with the early entrance of Barack Obama into the
race—gives Clinton more room to take her time.

Crawford said that exhaustion from a particularly tough midterm year in
Iowa has many of its Democratic operatives and activists thankful this
cycle's presidential prospects are taking things slow. Iowa, he said, has
"just endured a grueling and depressing U.S. Senate race"—a reference to
Democrat Bruce Braley's 9-point loss to GOP state Sen. Joni Ernst—and its
political class is grateful for the time off before presidential season
begins in earnest.

Activists and observers give varying timelines for when people will start
to wonder whether Clinton not running after all—some say once April begins,
while others named May 1. But most expect that the answer will come before
then, especially if it's a "no."

"If somebody is waiting for an announcement from Mrs. Clinton, then that
person is probably prepared to wait not only through December and January
but also through February and March," said Kurt Meyer, who chairs Iowa's
Mitchell County Democratic Party. "She need not declare for our sakes."

Jim Davis, a 2008 supporter of Clinton and longtime Democratic activist
who's backing her again, said he's willing to wait.

"From my standpoint, until she makes it clear one way or another, I'm not
going anywhere," he said.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton: Why Wait to
Announce 2016 Bid?”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/12/hillary-clinton-why-wait-to-announce-2016-bid/>*

By Peter Nicholas

December 12, 2014, 6:16 a.m. EST

She is giving speeches at a dizzying clip. Popping up at the White House to
chat with President Barack Obama. Schmoozing with Prince William and his
wife, Kate, during the royal couple’s recent trip to New York.

It all suggests a Hillary Clinton presidential bid is under way.

Only there’s no candidate.

Mrs. Clinton hasn’t announced she is running. And it’s now looking as if
she could wait until spring before she officially jumps into the 2016
presidential race. The last time she ran, she declared in January of 2007.
Were she to stick to the same timetable, she’d tell us of her plans next
month.

Why wait? After all, most people already seem convinced she’s running, and
Mrs. Clinton has done little to discourage the idea.

Let’s look at both sides of the argument.

Three reasons it might be in her interest to delay an announcement:

–Self-interest. Once she declares, she’s on the hook to release a personal
financial disclosure form. That will provide fresh fodder for critics who
believe former President Bill Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have entered the
ranks of the super-rich, propelled by six-figure speaking fees. There’s a
palpable strain of populism in the Democratic Party, personified by Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). A spotlight on the Clintons’ personal wealth
could stir up the left, stoking calls for a primary challenge from Ms.
Warren.

–Money. Some Democrats have complained that donors won’t commit to
candidates not named  Hillary Clinton while she’s a potential candidate.
She’s effectively frozen the Democratic field. By keeping people guessing,
Mrs. Clinton starves potential primary opponents of the campaign money they
need to begin a credible presidential bid.

–Convenience. Mrs. Clinton is the runaway front-runner for the Democratic
nomination. She has a campaign apparatus waiting. No other prospective
candidate in either party comes to the race with such built-in advantages.
Meantime, she can counter any Republican attacks by saying she’s not even a
candidate. And she can continue making money through paid speeches, such as
one coming up in March to a summer camp conference in Atlantic City.

Three reasons to announce now:

–Party loyalty. Democrats are at a crossroads, following their disastrous
showing in the midterm elections last month. The party is divided between
Warren-style liberals and pragmatic centrists. Fissures have developed
between Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional leaders. House Democratic
leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Thursday she was “enormously
disappointed” the White House agreed to a $1.1 trillion spending bill that
would roll back language in the Dodd-Frank law regulating financial
institutions. Mrs. Clinton, once she enters the race, would be the party’s
instant standard-bearer and could help bridge divisions.

–Control. Many Democrats aren’t waiting for Mrs. Clinton; they’re starting
her campaign with or without her. That’s not necessarily in her interest.
Last week, an enterprising super PAC in California went so far as to
release a music video that has the feel of a Clinton campaign theme song.
Was the video a ham-handed plea for the white male working class vote?  Or
an inspired attempt to broaden the appeal of a woman determined to break
the ultimate glass ceiling? You be the judge.

In any case, the video went viral. If a Clinton campaign were up and
running, there would be less attention paid to freelance efforts and more
focus on the ideas coming from the actual candidate. Mrs. Clinton would be
better positioned to control the messages coming out under her name.

–Reality.  Is there really any doubt that Mrs. Clinton is dead-set on
running? If not, why put off the inevitable? Why not get it over with and
announce after the holidays? “I’m baaaack,” Mrs. Clinton said in September
at a Democratic fundraising event in Iowa, the state that hosts the
first-in-the-nation nominating contest. She’s back. So … get in.

*Slate: “Down and Out”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_extraordinary_the_party.html>*

By Jamelle Bouie

December 11, 2014, 3:03 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The Democratic Party’s losses at the state level are almost
unprecedented, and could cripple it for a long time to come.

The most immediate consequence of the Democrats’ midterm disaster was
losing control of the Senate and ceding Congress to the GOP. For the next
two years, Democrats will have to deal with conservative legislation,
right-wing hijinks, and—in all odds—a vacancy crisis, as Republicans freeze
confirmations and refuse to fill spots in the executive branch and on the
federal bench.

That is bad for the Democratic Party. What’s on the horizon is worse. As
Amy Walter notes for the Cook Political Report, Democrats lost big at all
levels of government, including the states. “Today,” she writes, “about 55
percent of all state legislative seats in the country are held by
Republicans. That’s the largest share of GOP state legislators since the
1920s.” What’s more, “just 11 states have an all Democratic-controlled
legislature,” and Democrats hold single-party control in just seven states.
By contrast, “Republicans have a legislative majority in 30 states,
including the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North
Carolina,” and single-party control in most of the South.

This, Walter says, is a slow-moving disaster for congressional Democrats.
She’s right. Absent major gains in 2016, 2018, and 2020, Democrats will be
shut out of the next round of redistricting. If, she writes, “Democrats
can’t get a seat at the redistricting table in 2020, they may find
themselves locked out of a congressional majority for another 10 years.”
And even if they do get a seat at the table, argues Greg Sargent for the
Washington Post, there’s still the problem of population distribution; even
in blue states, most Democratic voters are crammed in a handful of urban
areas, which dilutes their strength in House elections. Sargent quotes
David Wasserman (also of the Cook Political Report): “If Democrats were to
get neutral maps drawn by God in all 50 states, they would still fall well
short of winning back the House,” says Wasserman. “What Democrats really
need is a massive resettlement program.”

With that said, there are more costs to Democratic weakness in the states
than just House elections. States are where parties build talent and try
new ideas. Here, the GOP is instructive. Its brightest stars are either
governors (Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Chris Christie) or former state
officeholders (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Joni Ernst). And
Republican-controlled statehouses have been incubators for conservative
ideas, from experiments in tax cutting (Bobby Jindal’s Louisiana and Sam
Brownback’s Kansas) to full-fledged assaults on public-sector unions
(Walker’s Wisconsin and Christie’s New Jersey). In all likelihood, the next
Republican president will either come from the states, or will borrow his
approach from the present generation of GOP governors. Likewise, if
Democrats win the White House for a third term, they’ll face opposition
from Congress and empowered Republican majorities at the state level.
Indeed, if not for statehouse Republicans, the Affordable Care Act would be
a smoother project, with broader buy-in for exchanges and the Medicaid
expansion.

Democrats might have strong national prospects in the form of Hillary
Clinton, but they have little to look to in the states. Only a few places
stand as incubators for progressive strategies and ideas, and nationwide,
Democrats have close to nothing in the way of a bench for federal and
statewide office. The liberal counterparts to Walker, Christie, Brownback,
and Mike Pence—ideologically motivated governors with national
profiles—don’t exist. And as a result, liberals can’t point to a
forward-looking agenda that exists outside the bounds of the presidency.

Worse, without a strong presence in the states, liberals lack a base for
institutional pressure. Outside of Congress, there are few party voices
pushing President Obama to the left, or urging a more liberal approach to
key policy matters. And while part of this is just the nature of the
game—parties try to maintain unity when they control the White House—part
of it has to do with the lack of strong liberal voices (and strong liberal
agendas) throughout the country. If you have your doubts, you just have to
look at the field of presidential candidates for the 2016 Democratic
primary who aren’t Clinton. At most—for viable, liberal alternatives
outside of Congress—there’s outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. The
rest are either sitting senators or moderate governors, like New York’s
Andrew Cuomo.

Put simply, the two statewide Republican waves have put Democrats and
liberals on the near-term defensive. The former will struggle to build a
new bench for the post-Obama era, and the latter will fight to put
effective pressure on a national party that—if it follows the lead of its
likely nominee—isn’t eager to embrace the unapologetic liberalism of its
activist class. And the honest truth is that things could get worse. With a
sudden economic downturn, Democrats could enter 2016 as serious underdogs,
giving Republicans a real chance to elevate new talent and give their
statewide strategies a spin on the national stage.

*CNN: “Torture report splits 2016 Democrats”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/2016-democrats-torture/index.html>*

By Dan Merica

December 11, 2014, 4:07 p.m. EST

The release of the CIA torture report on Tuesday, detailing brutal
post-9/11 interrogation tactics, has led to an array of responses from
potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, in an interview with The New York Times
released Thursday, moved to the left of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton when he called for a "special prosecutor" from the Justice
Department to look into those who carried out the torture.

"I think there needs to be some accountability so that this doesn't happen
again," O'Malley said. "I don't believe the United States should torture.
Period. Full stop."

All Democrats eying the presidency are against torture, but so far O'Malley
is the only to advocate for a Justice Department investigation.

Clinton, during her time of the speaking circuit, has advocated for the
release of the torture report but not a special prosecutor.

"I thought we needed more transparency," Clinton said at a June event,
reflecting on her time as secretary of state. "I didn't want people to be
criminally prosecuted, people who were doing what they were told to do,
that there were legal opinions supporting what they were told to do, but I
wanted transparency."

She added, "And that's what Dianne Feinstein is trying to provide with that
6,000-page report. And I think the American people deserve to see it."

A Clinton spokesman has not responded to emails asking for comment after
the release of the report.

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a statement on Tuesday after
the torture report was released.

"The United States must not engage in torture," Sanders said. "If we do, in
an increasingly brutal world, we lose our moral standing to condemn other
nations or groups that engage in uncivilized behavior."

Sanders, however, did not comment on a special prosecutor and his spokesman
was unable to provide a statement on Thursday from the senator.

In a conversation with reporters on Wednesday, Sanders did, however, say
that if anyone lied to elected official on torture, "they should be fired
immediately."

And former Sen. Jim Webb, the only Democrat who has announced an
exploratory committee into the 2016 race, questioned why lawmakers didn't
provide better oversight of the program.

"The policies that allowed or turned a blind eye to these acts are no
longer in place. The question is whether the intelligence committees are
properly conducting oversight functions today," he said in a statement.

Webb also sent a number of tweets about the torture report that seemed to
cast doubt on why Congress was looking into the matter now.

"Where was the Intelligence Committee when the torture was going on,"
question Webb in one tweet.

"The question is not torture, but how far Congress has descended in its
historical oversight role on key issues of foreign policy," he said in
another.

*Politico: “Bill Clinton: Let’s push for more info on CIA torture”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/bill-clinton-cia-torture-113523.html>*

By Katie Glueck

December 11, 2014, 9:06 p.m. EST

Former President Bill Clinton is backing the release of a report
documenting the CIA’s use of torture after the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the
country should “keep pushing” to find out more about what happened.

In an interview Thursday with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos, Clinton also rebutted
critics’ claims that the report’s release by the Senate Intelligence
Committee will spark reactions that could endanger Americans.

“What I hope will happen is that we will keep pushing on this, find out
exactly what happened, give anybody who disagrees a chance to have their
say, and then do what we should always do in cases like this — say what our
policy is going to be on this and stick with it and have it consistent with
international law,” Clinton said. “I do not think we are in more danger
because of this.”

The Democratic former president added that the release of the report showed
that “we believe, instead of putting these problems under the rug and
hiding them, it’s better to come out and say, ‘OK, this is what happened,
now let’s talk about how we can fix it, how we can make it better.’”

Clinton also declined to fault former President George W. Bush, who was in
office at the time the CIA was using the harsh tactics on terrorist
suspects.

Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — a likely
Democratic presidential contender in 2016 — has yet to publicly weigh in on
the report and its release. Hillary Clinton served in the Senate during
Bush’s presidency.

*Bloomberg: “Welcome to the Democrats' Post-Obama Family Feud”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-12/welcome-to-the-democrats-postobama-family-feud>*

By Lisa Lerer

December 12, 2014, 5:45 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The Progressive movement is in search of a leader and a voice
to pressure Hillary Clinton to embrace populist economic issues.

It's turning out to be an awkward week for the Dean family. As former
Vermont Governor Howard Dean announced Wednesday that he would back a
Hillary Clinton presidential bid, the progressive group he founded declared
that they were launching a major campaign to coax Massachusetts Senator
Elizabeth Warren into the race.

"Some of the other candidates may not be happy about this but they’ll thank
us for it later," Jim Dean, executive director of Democracy for America,
and Howard's brother, said of the effort to woo Warren. "Part of this is
trying to wake the party up." His position couldn't be more different than
his brother's, who praised Clinton as a "mature, seasoned, thoughtful
leader" in an editorial published by Politico that morning.

As the Jims of the Democratic world are clamoring for an alternative to
Clinton, the Howards are racing to line up behind her even though she
hasn't decided whether to run. The two powerful women at the center of the
discontent, however, are little more than indicators of a far broader
family feud over the Democratic party’s future heading into 2016. On one
side of the debate are strategists and officials, including some aligned
with Clinton, who believe their path to the White House in the post-Obama
era rests with wooing centrist, working class voters.  To progressive
activists, union members, and other parts of the "professional left," as an
Obama aide once called them, victory lies in running on an aggressive,
populist economic message.

"Some of the jockeying now is trying to strategically make sure Hillary
understands that she can't be an economic moderate without generating
pushback," said Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees
International Union. "Progressives are anxious that her policies, not her
heart, will be too generous toward Wall Street."

That debate will take center stage this weekend, when liberal activists
gather in Washington for RootsCamp, an annual "unconference" that brings
thousands of progressives to the Washington Convention Center. A major
topic in the hallways will be the announcement by liberal groups this week
of plans to spend more than a million dollars, including opening offices in
the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, trying to convince
beloved economic populist Warren to challenge Clinton. Despite Warren's
insistent refrain that she is not running for president, activists see a
glimmer of hope. "She's been very consistent in her statements saying she
is not running present tense," said Neil Sroka, a spokesman for Democracy
for America. "Tense matters."

For now, though, progressives are a movement in search of a leader. With
Clinton's take-over of the Democratic party near complete, there's no
national figure willing to take up their cry. Other than Warren, former
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, known for his principled stances against
big money in politics, has a government job already—working for the State
Department that Clinton used to run. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley’s
political clout was weakened by the midterm loss of his lieutenant governor
in the race to succeed him and the governor has pulled staff out of Iowa.
Even Al Sharpton, who hammered Clinton for taking weeks to comments on the
racially-charged riots in Ferguson, Missouri, put out a press release to
brag about his birthday call from Clinton.

Of course, Clinton could decide not to run, Warren could change her mind,
or any number of unpredictable events that tend to scramble presidential
races could upend the Democratic field. But, so far, there's little sign
that many Democrats are thirsting for a Clinton alternative. In Iowa, for
instance, she is the top candidate for 53 percent of likely Democratic
caucusgoers, according to a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll.
That's roughly five times bigger than Warren, who followed with 10 percent
support as a first pick of party insiders. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders,
and independent, and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who've expressed
interest in running, trailed behind at three and one percent, respectively.
"If she chooses to run, and I hope she does, I think she will have no
significant opposition," said Ted Strickland, the former Ohio Governor who
now heads the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the advocacy arm of
a liberal think tank. "I'm not saying there won't be a primary contest but
I don't see any reasonable possibility that she could be denied the
Democratic nomination."

Strickland, along with other Clinton-backers, sees commercial motives in
the Draft Warren effort. "If someone has said they are not a candidate for
president, period, is it respectful or disrespectful to use that person's
name for their own purposes?" asked Des Moines lawyer Jerry Crawford, who
co-chaired Clinton's 2008 campaign in Iowa and helps lead Ready for
Hillary, a group laying the groundwork for a campaign, in the state. "If
Secretary Clinton said she wasn't running, I wouldn't be out there
disrespecting her by engaging in a draft movement."

Unlike the Tea Party, which remains a powerful force in the Republican
party, the influence of progressive groups has waned during the Obama
years. With the Senate soon to be in Republican control, progressives
aspire to become their own power center that can force Democrats to stand
strong on economic issues. By aligning themselves with Warren, who’s an
outspoken advocate of Wall Street regulation, groups like MoveOn not only
grow membership lists and bank accounts, they also raise their profile.
“Could there be some self-serving motives behind this? Of course," said
Strickland. "If you're not engaged in some kind of specific effort, it's a
little more difficult to keep support coming in."

While Warren is their billboard, the real target is likely Clinton. A
history of pro-business economic policies and a roster of rich Wall Street
donors make progressive and union activists anxious about the direction of
her leadership and political loyalties. Though she has yet to announce a
campaign, they're trying to send the message that their concerns should not
be taken for granted.  "I think the fact that people are encouraging a
person who probably isn't going to run may just be a manifestation of
wanting to make clear that Secretary Clinton is not going to walk in and
assume there's a coronation," said Stern. "She's going to have to work it
policy-wise, particularly on the economy"

That's no surprise, given that most Democrats have already turned their
attention to Clinton. Operatives are jockeying for jobs. Donors are eager
to open their wallets. And politicians are rushing to position themselves
for a campaign that doesn't yet exist. Why should her progressive
opposition be any different?

*National Journal: “Elizabeth Warren: The GOP's New Favorite Foil”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/elizabeth-warren-the-gop-s-new-favorite-foil-20141211>*

By Sarah Mimms

December 11, 2014

With congressional compromises collapsing all around them and facing a
pending government shutdown, Republicans are testing a new message: Blame
it all on Elizabeth Warren.

In less than 24 hours this week, two bicameral deals over must-pass
legislation appeared near collapse. Congress needs to extend federal
funding if it wants to keep the government running, and it is also facing
the expiration of a terrorism insurance program that lawmakers from both
parties are set on extending. But both deals hit turmoil in their final
hours, in part over planned additions to the legislative packages that
would pull back parts of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulation law.

As stalemates loom, Republicans aren't putting blame for the impasse on
Harry Reid, or on Nancy Pelosi, or even on President Obama. They're
targeting Warren: One Republican aide griped anonymously to Politico that
if the deals collapsed, it was because of Warren's influence over the rest
of the party.

How much power the Massachusetts Democrat has over negotiations, however,
is an open question. Staffers on both sides of the aisle involved in the
discussions over the omnibus spending bill and Terrorism Risk Insurance Act
(TRIA) say Warren was not party to any of those talks. Instead, Sens.
Barbara Mikulski and Chuck Schumer lead those negotiations, respectively.
And given Warren's frantic reaction to the provisions when they became
public this week, it appears she was just as shocked by last-minute changes
to Dodd-Frank as everyone else.

Republicans say Warren is responsible nonetheless. "Being present in the
room is not necessary to have your presence felt," Republican National
Committee spokesman Sean Spicer explained. "Every leading Democrat feels
like Elizabeth Warren is looking over their shoulder to go further to the
left."

The swiftness with which Republicans blamed Warren signals that they see
her as both a threat and an easy target. And as Warren's star rises within
the Democratic Party, it's a tactic that promises to see much more airtime.

Warren was recently named to Democratic leadership (she won't actually take
her seat in soon-to-be Minority Leader Reid's office until January) and
while she's repeatedly said whe won't run for president, she's often
mentioned as a potential contender in the race—though not unless Hillary
Clinton takes a pass. But she has no committee chairmanships and, for now,
little real power in the Senate. Warren is the least-senior senior senator
in Congress, having served for less than two years.

Republicans see Warren as a way to paint the Democratic Party as
increasingly beholden to its liberal wing and removed from moderates.
(Democrats take the same tact with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, often
referring to the Texan as "Speaker Cruz" to imply that his wishes hold sway
in the House.)

Warren is hardly the only Dodd-Frank champion among congressional
Democrats. And she's far from alone in opposing the changes pushed by
Republicans this week. Liberal icons like Sen. Sherrod Brown and even Wall
Street-aligned Democrats like Schumer oppose the Dodd-Frank reforms. "It's
not unique to her," one senior Democratic aide said, adding that many
Democrats see using the deals to reopen Dodd-Frank as a nonstarter. "I
don't think her being outspoken on it has made other people outspoken."

But other members of the Democratic Conference in the Senate aren't seen as
rising stars the way Warren is. Few are considered potential presidential
candidates. And none serves as well in the role of liberal specter over the
next two years as Warren will, particularly now that she is a member of
leadership. "The more exposure she gets, the better for us," Spicer said.
Warren could easily become a poster-woman for the Democratic Party over the
next two years, he argued, serving the same purpose as Pelosi and Reid have
in Republican advertising and strategy.

Of course, Warren isn't as well known as Pelosi or Reid—and certainly not
Hillary Clinton—and the Republican focus on her will only serve to increase
her national profile, as she contemplates moving up in the political
sphere. But Republicans argue that Warren's popularity is limited to a
specific constituency; sure, she could do well among Democrats, but she'd
have a hard time appealing to the center. In highlighting her, Republicans
are betting that the negatives will outweigh the positives.

"You're building them up, but in the process of building them up you're
making them so unviable," Spicer said. "If you told me today that Hillary
Clinton had announced that she isn't running [for president] and Elizabeth
Warren is, I would be doing the biggest jig in my office."

But the senior Democratic aide simply pointed to the 2014 elections, when
Warren traveled the country on behalf of Democratic candidates, drawing
huge crowds. "Look at how many people show up when she goes and campaigns,
even in red states," the aide said. "She has the pulse of what people are
anxious about ... that there's a system that is working against growing
wages and better-paying jobs. And that's exactly why people are crying out
for. And that's why she resonates in Massachusetts, that's why she gets
invited to places like West Virginia, Kentucky. She has a message for all
audiences. It's a universal message."

Republicans plan to use that very message against Warren. Republican
pollster David Winston notes that in 2008, exit polls showed that Americans
felt that government should do more by an 8-point margin. In the wake of
the 2014 midterm elections, that number flipped significantly; Americans
now prefer that government do less by a 13-point margin.

"[Warren's] whole focus is government being the solution. What she's saying
and what the public is saying are two different things," Winston said.

Democrats disagree. In a speech last month at the National Press Club,
Schumer mounted a strong defense of a pro-government Democratic Party,
pointing to Gallup polling that has shown that about a third of Americans
prefer a more active government, a third prefer less government
intervention, and a third want something in the middle. Those numbers have
hardly changed since 2010. Warren, who will work under Schumer when she
joins the leadership team, is a key part of spreading that message.

Warren's promotion to leadership only reinforces the idea that she speaks
for the party as a whole, Winston and Spicer said. And as she gains
influence within the conference, they say, it only helps Republicans. "I
understand why Harry Reid and Democrats put her in leadership, but I
wouldn't be surprised if a year or more from now they regret that," Spicer
said.

But Warren's influence isn't limited to just the Senate. Pelosi forwarded a
copy of Warren's entire floor speech on her objections to the Dodd-Frank
provision in the omnibus to reporters Wednesday. And the grassroots effort
lead by MoveOn.Org, Ready for Warren, and other liberal groups to draft
Warren to run for president is only raising her profile even higher.

Warren is hardly walking away from that position. She spoke at length on
the Senate floor Wednesday, saying she would vote against the omnibus
spending bill that will keep the government's doors open over the
Dodd-Frank provision. She has worked tirelessly over the past few days to
unite Democrats in the House and Senate around the issue, even holding a
press conference with colleagues in the House urging Democrats in the lower
chamber to pull their support from the bill until the Dodd-Frank language
is removed.

And House Democrats did just that, forcing Republican leadership to pull
the omnibus at the last minute and huddle with their members over how to
pass the bill with just hours remaining before a scheduled government
shutdown.

Warren wasn't alone in her opposition to the Dodd-Frank changes, but she
was among the most vocal. For Republicans, that's good enough.

*Boston Globe: “Mass. group hopes to give Clinton a headstart”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/12/11/mass-group-hopes-give-clinton-headstart/WaIrJmI3QZj9AswwY0D0AK/story.html>*

By David Scharfenberg

December 12, 2014

Hillary Rodham Clinton has not yet declared for president. But more than a
few politicos are working to build the scaffolding for her campaign.

Ready for Hillary and Priorities USA Action, super PACs stacked with
high-profile supporters, have grabbed headlines. But several other, smaller
groups have sprouted, too.

There’s Faith Voters for Hillary. There’s Hillarypac (and its mortal enemy,
Stop Hillary PAC). Another committee, Stand for Hillary, recently deployed
a singing cowboy in an online video.

Now, a new entrant from Massachusetts: Sign for Hillary.

The online venture, which went live Thursday afternoon, has a very specific
mission: giving Clinton a headstart on the laborious process of collecting
signatures to get on the ballot in Democratic primaries all over the
country.

The signforhillary.com approach is pretty simple.

Step one: Get Clinton supporters to commit in advance to signing a petition
in the 20 states that require or allow candidates to collect signatures (17
states require them, according to Sign for Hillary’s count, while three
others allow candidates to compile them in lieu of paying a filing fee to
get on the ballot). Step two: If and when Clinton formally declares, send
out the nomination papers to be signed and mailed back.

“I’ve never seen it done anywhere,” said Harold Hubschman, a Sign for
Hillary cofounder who owns a professional signature-collecting firm. “And
I’ve been looking.”

The states that require signatures (Massachusetts is not one of them) ask
for relatively few. In Alabama, it’s 500. In Virginia, it’s 5,000.

But there are some tricky provisions. Several states, for instance, require
a certain number of signatures from each of their congressional districts.
And quite a few mainstream presidential candidates have failed to make a
primary ballot for one reason or another.

In 2012, Republicans Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Jon
Hunstman Jr. all failed to qualify in Virginia. Perry campaign officials
testified in court that an employee of a firm the campaign hired to collect
signatures came up short after falling into a diabetic coma.

Sign for Hillary organizers, who hope to collect 100,000 signatures, say
they’re sure Clinton’s political machine would be up to the task. But they
figure there’s no harm in giving the nascent campaign a headstart. And they
say the effort, if successful, will free up Clinton campaign volunteers to
do other work.

Arline Isaacson, a veteran lobbyist and gay rights advocate involved with
Sign for Hillary, adds that the project — which advisers plan to hand over
to the Clinton campaign if she declares — will be collecting names and
addresses that could be of value for fund-raising and other purposes.

“We’re not just getting any Tom, Dick, and Harry to sign a petition, which
is what you do in most states — you stand out there with a clipboard and
you get anyone who’s willing to come along and sign a paper,” she said.
“Everyone signing this is a genuine, bonafide, card-carrying Hillary
supporter.”

Hubschman said he and Sign for Hillary cofounder James E. Fleming, another
veteran political operative, had long been kicking around the idea of a
Web-driven effort to identify petition signers in advance. And the expected
Clinton campaign, he said, seemed like the perfect place to start.

The former senator and secretary of state, he said, “is a force of nature
right now in Democratic politics” and her potential candidacy provided a
good opportunity “to go viral.”

Richard Goldstein, legal counsel for Sign for Hillary, said there is
nothing in the law to prevent Clinton from absorbing the group or
designating it an official affiliated committee if she declares. But any
donations individuals make to Sign for Hillary would count against the
maximum they can give to Clinton herself.

Sign for Hillary officials are capping donations at $99, so as not to
compete with a possible Clinton campaign.

Hubschman said he hopes the Clinton campaign will let Sign for Hillary
continue to run the operation if she declares. But he insisted he’s not
angling for any paid work with the campaign. He said he simply believes
that Clinton would make a great president.

He and the singing cowboy.

*Politico: “Backers: Romney more open to 2016 run”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/mitt-romney-2016-run-113518.html>*

By Ben White and Maggie Haberman

December 11, 2014, 6:25 p.m. EST

For most of the past year, Mitt Romney supporters have publicly said he
should consider running again. And for most of the past year, Romney has
seemed uninterested.

Until recently.

While some people close to Romney insist he hasn’t moved from saying he has
no plans to run, the 2012 Republican nominee has sounded at least open to
the idea in recent conversations, according to more than a dozen people
who’ve spoken with him in the last month.

In his private musings, Romney has sounded less than upbeat about most of
the potential candidates in the 2016 Republican field, according to the
people who’ve spoken with him, all of whom asked for anonymity in order to
speak freely.

He has assessed various people’s strengths and weaknesses dispassionately,
wearing what one ally called his “consultant cap” to measure the field. He
has said, among other things, that Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor,
would run into problems because of his business dealings, his work with the
investment banks Lehman Brothers and Barclays, and his private equity
investments.

“You saw what they did to me with Bain [Capital],” he has said, referring
to the devastating attacks that his Republican rivals and President Obama’s
team launched against him for his time in private equity, according to
three sources familiar with the line. “What do you think they’ll do to
[Bush] over Barclays?”

Romney did not respond to a request for comment left with his son’s firm,
Solemere Capital, where the former Massachusetts governor serves as an
adviser. Spencer Zwick, finance chair of Romney’s 2012 campaign chairman
and now a senior executive at Solamere, declined to comment on any
discussions Romney may have had with investors or anyone else about 2016.

“I’d very much like him to run and think he would make a great president
and a lot of people who supported him in 2012 and even those who did not
support him want him to run,” Zwick said. “That doesn’t mean he will run.”

For most of the past year, even Republicans who admire Romney have believed
the chatter about him possibly running for president has been mostly
sparked by his former staffers or people involved with Solemere, seeing it
as a boon for business.

Romney’s new tone in discussions with people behind closed doors came as
Bush has seemed to move closer toward a run. A number of donors and
operatives who had assumed Bush would take a pass now believe he is likely
to enter the race.

People close to Romney stressed that he has deep respect for Bush.

“He thinks Gov. Bush was a good governor,” said one source close to Romney,
who added that the former Massachusetts governor has still maintained he
has no plans to run. However, the source added, there is a “growing chorus”
of people who would like to see him do it again.

“There’s a core group of people around Mitt who think he should take
another stab at it,” said the source. That has grown to include some former
donors, who have told other candidates that they are waiting to see what
Romney does. With a crowded GOP field expected to take shape, the stance
also buys donors time to decide on a candidate.

Those people say Romney has felt vindicated by many of the events of the
past two years, such as Russia’s incursion into Ukraine.

Most Republicans still doubt that Romney would subject himself to a third
grueling national run. They believe he is basking in the praise of his
supporters, after the sharp disappoint of his 2012 loss, for which he was
vilified by some Republicans at the time. He was widely seen as running a
feckless campaign, marked by overcaution and the questionable strategy of
making his business record a centerpiece of his bid.

But top Wall Street executives who met with Romney on his recent trip to
New York said they came away from the sit-downs – which mostly focused on
Solemere, his son Tagg’s Solamere investment firm – more convinced the 2012
nominee was thinking about another run.

“I came away from the conversation with the distinct impression that he was
running and that he did not think anyone in the field right now was
particularly strong,” said one top executive who met with Romney and
requested not to be identified while speaking about a private conversation.

“It sounded like he felt he could win, and that the country had turned in
his direction and he looks at the field and does not see anyone who does
not look very beatable,” said the executive.

This executive and another who met with Romney said they were struck by the
former Massachusetts governor’s comments about Bush, who is also strongly
considering a run. These executives said Romney indicated that he would not
defer to Bush as the standard-bearer of the establishment wing of the
Republican Party.

They also said Romney indicated that Bush would run into even more issues
about his business dealings than Romney did over his private equity fortune
in 2012. Bush’s latest investment funds, according to a Bloomberg
Businessweek story published Thursday, include offshore tax havens and
Chinese investors — an indication they would be an ongoing focus if the
former Florida governor enters the race. (A Bush aide said in an email that
“there are no offshore tax havens” and called the story’s conclusion “a
huge and inappropriate leap.”)

As for Romney, he “tells people not to commit to a candidate that is not
their first choice and that they aren’t excited about,” said the second
executive, who was involved in the meetings. “He does not think much of the
current field and does not think it is jelling. He still views himself as
the leader of the establishment wing of the Republican Party. He does not
feel he owes the Bushes anything and does not think Jeb is the de facto
leader of the establishment GOP.”

Among the people Romney has spoken with recently is casino magnate Sheldon
Adelson, according to three people familiar with the encounter. Adelson
single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich alive against Romney in the 2012 GOP
primary through a super PAC, before giving $30 million to a pro-Romney
group after he clinched the nomination.

Another person close to Romney said that the former governor’s “body
language” is different now and he is “certainly taking a harder look” at
getting in the 2016 race. Still, one Romney supporter cautioned that people
who want him to run sometimes hear what they want to hear in the former
governor’s comments.

Nonetheless, several people have noticed a change in tone, which comes
after Romney previously indicated to people that he would only get into the
race under an extreme circumstance in which party leaders drafted him
during an inconclusive primary process.

“In September he said to me that he’s run twice and now it’s other people’s
turn,” said Bobbie Kilberg, a GOP fund-raiser in Virginia who is hoping
Republicans can coalesce early around a single center-right establishment
candidate.

People who believe Romney has shifted in his thinking said they are unclear
about whether he would attempt to run regardless of the field, or whether
he would wait to see how Bush and other candidates fare.

Another top Republican operative who is supportive of a Jeb Bush candidacy
said that he did not believe Bush would have as much trouble with his
financial dealings in a campaign as Romney did.

“Jeb’s wealth and investments are nothing on the scale of Romney’s. He is
not building car elevators,” this person said, offering a hint of the
bitterness that could ensue if both Romney and Bush run.

Indeed, Bush, for his part, has begun conducting opposition research on
himself to identify any potential issues that could arise, a standard move
for potential candidates but nonetheless one that indicates his level of
seriousness about the process, two people familiar with his plans said.

He has also had discussions about how he would get out of his business
ventures. Indeed, one Bush supporter said the former Florida governor would
be far more proactive than Romney was in responding to attacks about his
business record, which Romney made central to his run.

There will be “no fetal position” from Bush, said the source, a reference
to Romney’s decision to wait until he had been defined by Democrats to
start hitting back and defining himself.

*Politico: “Ex-Obama aide makes Warren-2016 push”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/christopher-hass-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-113524.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

December 11, 2014, 10:19 p.m. EST

A former campaign aide to President Barack Obama who is volunteering with a
super PAC trying to draft Democrat Elizabeth Warren to run for president
says he’s gathered “in the hundreds” of signatures from fellow Obama alumni
to prod the Massachusetts senator into the race.

The onetime aide, Christopher Hass, has circulated the letter on an Obama
alumni email group and said it will be released on Friday.

The letter comes after the progressive group MoveOn.org announced this week
it is spending $1 million to try to draft Warren into the race and
challenge likely candidate Hillary Clinton. Ready for Warren, the draft
effort, has struggled to raise money after disavowed them publicly. The
first-term senator has said repeatedly she will not run for president.

“Some of you may have already seen this passed around by other Obama folks
over the past few days, but I wanted to make sure as many fellow OFA alumni
as possible had a chance to see and take part,” Hass, who recently served
as digital director for Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn’s failed reelection bid,
wrote on the email list. “Later this week, a public letter is going to be
released with the names of former OFA staffers who are urging Elizabeth
Warren to run for president.”

He added: “This is born out of a lot of things — not just affection for
Warren (though there’s plenty of that) but also the desire for there to be
a real, competitive primary in 2016 that will make our party, our eventual
candidate, and our country stronger. I’ve seen the list of signers, and
there’s a lot of great people on it. If you want to add your name, today is
your last chance.”

“We helped elect Barack Obama — now we’re calling on Elizabeth Warren to
run in 2016,” Hass’ letter states. “We know that the improbable is far from
impossible.”

The letter states that former Obama campaign staffers and Organizing for
America aides are making the pro-Warren push.

“Rising income inequality is the challenge of our times, and we want
someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street
banks and special interests that took down our economy,” the letter says.

Just after the burst of activity around Warren this week, former
presidential hopeful Howard Dean wrote an op-ed in POLITICO explaining why
he is supporting Clinton. The pro-Warren moves were made by a group he
founded, Democracy for America. But Dean wrote that he expects Clinton to
talk about income inequality and the middle class if she runs.

The various groups’ efforts to lure Warren into the race, as improbable as
their success may be, serve an additional purpose — boosting their own
fundraising and email lists.

Some Obama allies have seen Warren as the person likeliest to run a
campaign using his 2008 formula. But Obama had crossover appeal with
Democratic voters that Warren does not, and he had made clear by this point
in 2006 that he was seriously considering launching a campaign. By
contrast, Warren signed a letter with other Democratic women senators
urging Clinton to run.

*Calendar:*

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

·  December 15 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton discusses closing gender data
gaps with Michael Bloomberg (AP
<https://twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/542345675493892096>)

·  December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy
Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html>
)

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

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

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)

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