Subject: ​Correct The Record Monday December 15, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:56:25 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday December 15, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "If you don't measure, you can't
manage." - @HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>announcing
partnerships using data to close gender gap #Data2X
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/Data2X?src=hash> #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> [12/15/14, 12:32 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/544545468164763650>]

*Headlines:*

*Huffington Post opinion: Peter Rosenstein: “Hillary Clinton Thinking
Wisely ‘What’s the Rush?’”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-clinton-thinking_b_6328188.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

“To those of us who support her it just makes sense to allow her all the
time she needs.”

*Associated Press: “Clinton, Bloomberg Push For Data To Help Women”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GENDER_DATA_GAPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former New York City
Mayor Michael Bloomberg are highlighting an effort to gather data to help
women and girls around the world.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton joins with Bloomberg to promote
women's rights”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/227137-clinton-joins-with-bloomberg-to-promote-womens-rights>*

“Hillary Clinton appeared with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
(I) on Monday to tout the work of an initiative to gather data that will
help create opportunity for women and girls.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Non-candidate Elizabeth Warren is
not running for president right now, today”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/15/non-candidate-elizabeth-warren-is-not-running-for-president-right-now-today/>*

"The Massachusetts lawmaker on Monday emphatically stressed — four times in
a row — that she is not seeking the top office during a morning interview
with NPR’s Steve Inskeep."

*Washington Post blog: Plum Line: Greg Sargent: “Why the ‘Elizabeth Warren
for president’ chatter will continue”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/15/why-the-elizabeth-warren-for-president-chatter-will-continue/>*

“Warren has denied countless times that she is running.”

*Talking Points Memo: “Warren Won't Completely Rule Out Presidential Bid To
Delight Of Journos”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-william-sherman-2016>*

"Warren said, as she and her office always do when these questions get
asked, that she isn't running for president."

*MSNBC: “Elizabeth Warren insists again: I’m not running for president”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/elizabeth-warren-insists-again-im-not-running-president>*

"The Massachusetts senator, whose profile has grown following her recent
effort to diminish Wall Street’s influence in the party, was asked by NPR
on Monday about progressive groups that have continued to encourage her to
make a bid for the Oval Office. 'I’m not running for president,' insisted
Warren."

*Vox: “Elizabeth Warren says she's not running for president. Should we
believe her?”
<http://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/7393749/elizabeth-warren-not-running>*

“The difference for the Democrats this time around is that Hillary
Clinton's poll numbers for the primary are actually extremely good — far
better than her own polling in 2008, or Romney's in 2012. She's also
winning endorsements from various party figures even though she's not yet
running.”

*The Atlantic: “The Art of Avoiding a Presidential Bid”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/elizabeth-warren-presidential-bid-2016-campaign-ready-for-warren/383753/>*

“Warren's wiggle room doesn't mean she'll be challenging Clinton in 2016.
But it ensures she'll keep getting the question for another few months.”

*BuzzFeed: “New Jewish Progressive Firm Launches After Split”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/new-jewish-progressive-firm-launches-after-split>*

“Bluelight is also gearing up for Hillary Clinton’s presumptive 2016
presidential effort. Rabinowitz is a veteran of Bill Clinton’s White House
and earlier this year launched ‘Jewish Americans Ready for Hillary,’ a
branch of the larger Ready for Hillary draft-Clinton campaign.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “A new 2016 poll has Joe Biden at 2
percent. Really.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/15/a-new-2016-poll-has-joe-biden-at-2-percent-really/>*

“Biden might well run for president. If he does, though, he'll have a huge
amount of work to do fixing his brand.”

*Articles:*

*Huffington Post opinion: Peter Rosenstein: “Hillary Clinton Thinking
Wisely ‘What’s the Rush?’”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-clinton-thinking_b_6328188.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

By Peter Rosenstein

December 15, 2014 12:37 p.m. EDT

As we approach 2015 Hillary Rodham Clinton's thought process on declaring a
run for president appears to include the words "what's the rush?" It is an
approach apparently frustrating many in the Republican Party and the media
who both can't wait to attack if and when she does announce. But to those
of us who support her it just makes sense to allow her all the time she
needs.

As someone who supports Hillary I will continue to work to build the Ready
for Hillary PAC and urge my friends to sign on and make a small
contribution to continue to build the movement. This will give Hillary the
final nudge needed so she knows that when she is ready to declare her
candidacy, which I believe she will do, she will have the support she needs
to win.

The reality for Hillary Rodham Clinton is there is no rush to announce and
the benefits of not jumping in too early are many. We know whether she is
an announced candidate or not, the attacks are ongoing. Every serious
Republican candidate and even many who could be considered "jokes" are
falling all over themselves to find a way to stop her. The front page of
the Sunday New York Times had a column "G.O.P Hopefuls Honing Attacks
Against Clinton." New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who many consider a
buffoon, made the mistake of quoting Barack Obama's 2008 debate line,
"You're likable enough, Hillary." He seems to forget that helped lead to
Hillary's win in the New Hampshire primary. Now maybe he is worried about a
recent Quinnipiac poll showing Hillary beating him by 11 percent in New
Jersey with a majority of those in the state saying he shouldn't even run.

Then there is Rick Perry, the Texas governor who some have said was "the
answer to those who thought George W. Bush too cerebral." He is attacking
Hillary's recent book sales and suggesting she has a hard time attracting
an audience and filling a room. Tell that to the thousands across the
nation who stood on long lines at her book signings and to get in to hear
her speak. If that is what he sees as a real attack we could be lucky to
see him be the Republican candidate. Then there is Ted Cruz (R-TX), the
latest incarnation of Joe McCarthy, mocking the "wealthy" Mrs. Clinton as
being out of touch with working-class voters. He seems to forget she
actually beat Barack Obama in primaries with overwhelming working-class
voters in Texas, Ohio and West Virginia. Guess he is just trying to find
something to say after reading the polls that have her beating him by huge
majorities across the nation.

The reality is that Hillary will be the target of vicious attacks from all
sides. She will be called too conservative by the liberals and too liberal
by the conservatives and those attacks will come from her own party. The
right-wing conspiracy that Hillary once spoke of will be out in force and
she will face a press corps that likes to take people who are popular and
tear them down. The press will go to great lengths reporting on every
attack against her and even making up some of their own.

What Hillary has going for her is that none of this is new. What frustrates
many is that she has faced this over her entire career and today she is
stronger than ever.

By not declaring her candidacy just yet, Hillary allows herself the time to
stay out of some of the parochial fights and not have to immediately
declare positions on every issue. People know where Hillary stands on the
crucial issues because of her lifetime in public service. She has a well
delineated record.

As we move into 2015 and have a Republican-controlled Congress, with a host
of Republican senators just waiting to jump into the Republican fight for
the nomination, Hillary gets the benefit of waiting to see how they each
handle the issues. She can watch how they build their campaigns before she
announces. From the point of view of supporters like me that just seems to
be smart politics.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, when and if she announces, will go into the
Democratic primaries with the largest headwind of any candidate in history.
She will have an army of people Ready for Hillary just waiting to jump on
her bandwagon and help her fight for the nomination and then win the
presidency. Those of us who believe it is time for a woman of Hillary's
intelligence and experience to be president of these great United States
have waited a long time and a few more months won't matter to us. Hillary,
take all the time you need but know when you are ready so are we.

*Associated Press: “Clinton, Bloomberg Push For Data To Help Women”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GENDER_DATA_GAPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Jonathan Lemire

December 15, 2014, 11:28 a.m. EST

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former New York City
Mayor Michael Bloomberg are highlighting an effort to gather data to help
women and girls around the world.

Clinton and Bloomberg made their push on Monday at the Manhattan
headquarters of the billionaire ex-mayor's charitable foundation.

Clinton says women across the globe suffer due a lack of knowledge about
their health, childbirth conditions and workplace roles. She says data gaps
undermine the progress of women and girls.

The initiative is called "Data 2x."

It's a partnership between Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Clinton Foundation
and the United Nations Foundation.

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton joins with Bloomberg to promote
women's rights”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/227137-clinton-joins-with-bloomberg-to-promote-womens-rights>*

By Peter Sullivan

December 15, 2014, 11:58 a.m. EST

Hillary Clinton appeared with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
(I) on Monday to tout the work of an initiative to gather data that will
help create opportunity for women and girls.

The likely Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination left
politics mostly aside at the event, as she has at a range of events
focusing on women's rights, as she holds off on a presidential
announcement. That announcement could come in the spring.

She did appear with Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-independent who for a
time was rumored to be considering a presidential run of his own. Current
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), a rising star on the left, whose
inauguration Clinton attended in January, ran his campaign largely against
the record of Bloomberg.

Bloomberg had warm words for Clinton in introducing her on Monday at the
event, hosted by Bloomberg Philanthropies in New York City, calling her "a
great secretary of State, a great senator for New York."

"If my mother and father knew that I was on a first-name basis with Hillary
Clinton, it would be a very big deal," Bloomberg said.

Clinton's speech stayed focused on touting the work and new partnerships of
the initiative, called Data 2x, created by Clinton in 2012 to help fill in
gaps in data about women and girls around the world.

She echoed her famous 1995 call in China that women's rights are human
rights, but also went further.

"It is a human rights issue after all. It is an issue of morality," she
said. "But we’re not making the progress we should be if that's the
principle and in some cases exclusive argument we make."

Therefore, she said the goal was to "build a case strong enough to convince
the skeptics based on hard-data and clear-eyed analysis that creating
opportunities for women and girls across the globe directly supports
everyone’s security and prosperity."

Clinton said the issues need to be taken seriously, citing experience as
secretary of State. "I got tired of seeing otherwise thoughtful people
smile and nod when I raised these issues, foreign leaders, business
executives, even senior officials in our own government," she said.

"After all, good decisions in government, in business, in life are based on
evidence," she said. "Rather than ideology, or gut feelings or anecdotes."

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Non-candidate Elizabeth Warren is
not running for president right now, today”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/15/non-candidate-elizabeth-warren-is-not-running-for-president-right-now-today/>*

By Jose A. DelReal

December 15, 2014, 8:29 a.m. EST

Elizabeth Warren is not currently running for president. Did you catch
that? Elizabeth Warren is not currently running for president!

The Massachusetts lawmaker on Monday emphatically stressed — four times in
a row — that she is not seeking the top office during a morning interview
with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. When Inskeep pointed out she was using the
present tense rather than the future tense, Warren repeated herself.
Pointedly.

Below is a transcript of the exchange, courtesy of NPR:

Inskeep: Senator Warren, as you must know, that even as you were fighting
over this in the Senate, there was a group called Ready for Warren that
wants you to run for president, that released a letter signed by more than
300 people who describe themselves as former Obama campaign workers and
staffers and aides. They want you to run. What do you say to them?

Warren: I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We
had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past
week. And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens
after this.

Inskeep: Would you tell these independent groups, "Give it up!" You're just
never going to run.

Warren: I told them, "I'm not running for president."

Inskeep: You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never
going to run?

Warren: I am not running for president.

Inskeep: You're not putting a "never" on that.

Warren: I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation
point at the end?

Warren was on the morning show to discuss a provision in the omnibus
spending bill passed into law on Saturday that rolls back restrictions on
derivative trading on Wall Street.

At publication time, the senior senator from Massachusetts has still not
announced a presidential campaign.

*Washington Post blog: Plum Line: Greg Sargent: “Why the ‘Elizabeth Warren
for president’ chatter will continue”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/15/why-the-elizabeth-warren-for-president-chatter-will-continue/>*

By Greg Sargent

December 15, 2014, 11:25 a.m. EST

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s dramatic stand against the provision in the
budget deal weakening Wall Street reform has drawn attention to her rising
clout as a kind of spokesperson for the left wing of the Democratic Party —
which, unsurprisingly, has renewed the chatter about whether she’ll run for
president.

Warren has denied countless times that she is running. But she continues to
cast that denial in the present tense — saying, “I am not running,” as
opposed to ruling out any run in the future.

As absurd and trivial as that distinction may seem, one group of people is
paying very close attention to it: The progressives running the “draft
Warren for president” campaign. A spokesman for one of the groups
intimately involved in the “draft Warren” effort tells me that those
pushing for a Warren run are taking her continued use of the present tense
as a reason to believe she has not actually ruled one out — and as a reason
to continue their efforts, which she could close down right now if she so
chose.

The latest such denial from Warren came in an interview with NPR’s Steve
Inskeep. In it, Warren stated four times that “I’m not running for
president.” When asked whether that meant she would “never” run, Warren
said: “I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation
point at the end?”

Well, maybe, but those running the “draft Warren” effort think there is
something she could do that would promptly end this chatter — with or
without an exclamation point — and that she has not availed herself of it.

“She’s been very consistent in speaking in the present tense,” Neil Sroka,
a spokesman for Democracy For America, which is involved in the “draft
Warren” effort, tells me. “The way this speculation will end is if she
says, ‘I am not running and I will not run.’ That would end the draft
effort.”

“We’re trying to make it very clear that this is an indication to us that
the door is still open,” Sroka continued. “Speaking in the present tense
certainly ensures that the grassroots folks are going to continue running
the draft campaign. I would think she knows that. And we want her to know
that.”

For my part, I don’t believe Warren has any intention to run, though I
wouldn’t entirely rule out the possibility that she might change her mind
under certain circumstances, most particularly if Hillary Clinton were to
somehow end up not running. That said, the focus on Warren’s grammar by the
“draft Warren” contingent, which also prominently includes MoveOn.org,
represents more than mere wishful thinking: It goes to the heart of what
this dance is really all about.

By all indications, progressive groups genuinely believe there is at least
a chance of coaxing Warren into the race under certain circumstances.
However, whether or not that ultimately happens, they have an interest in
keeping up this push for another reason: Anything that boosts Warren’s
visibility might also boost the potential power and influence that Warren
may be able to exert within Congress — and over the Democratic Party in
general — as their chosen vehicle for progressive policy ideas. That might
boost the groups’ own influence over the debate.

By this reasoning, of course, lefty groups might have an obvious motive for
reading subtleties into Warren’s grammar choices that may or may not be
there. At the same time, though, the groups’ approach to this might also
give Warren herself a reasonable enough motive for leaving things
grammatically ambiguous, if that is indeed what she is doing.

After all, keeping alive the “draft Warren” effort — which its proponents
themselves say will keep going until she rules out a future run — probably
does enhance her stature and clout as the standard bearer of the “tough on
Wall Street” wing of the party. That, in turn, could maximize her influence
over policy debates and the party’s overall direction — including that
adopted by the eventual Democratic nominee. What’s the harm, she may think,
in keeping alive the chatter?

As I said, I don’t believe Warren has any intention to run, and I don’t
have any particular insights into her thinking on this. But it’s worth
noting that, from the point of view of those most invested in a Warren run,
she has not taken the simple step that would shut down their efforts. And
she has an understandable reason for not doing so.

*Talking Points Memo: “Warren Won't Completely Rule Out Presidential Bid To
Delight Of Journos”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-william-sherman-2016>*

By Dylan Scott

December 15, 2014, 9:32 a.m. EST

With her presidential bubble rapidly expanding, Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-MA) isn't wavering in her insistence that she isn't running for
president -- but she also won't go ahead and say she will not run for
president.

Her evasions seem sure to keep the political class yapping.

NPR's Steve Inskeep had a little fun with the ongoing speculation about
Warren's presidential aspirations in a Monday morning interview with the
senator, asking her about the progressive groups that have teamed up to
draft her into the 2016 race, presumably against Hillary Clinton.

Warren said, as she and her office always do when these questions get
asked, that she isn't running for president. But when Inskeep observed that
she was speaking in the present tense, not exactly a Sherman-esque denial,
Warren didn't budget.

"You're not putting a 'never' on that," Inskeep noted after pressing her a
couple times.

"I am not running for president," Warren said. "You want me to put an
exclamation point at the end?"

The full exchange is below.

Sen. Warren, as you must know, that even as you were fighting over this in
the Senate, there was a group called Ready for Warren that wants you to run
for president, that released a letter signed by more than 300 people who
describe themselves as former Obama campaign workers and staffers and
aides. They want you to run. What do you say to them?

*I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We had a
really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week.
And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after
this.*

Would you tell these independent groups, "Give it up!" You're just never
going to run.

*I told them, "I'm not running for president."*

You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to
run?

*I am not running for president.*

You're not putting a "never" on that.

*I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at
the end?*

*MSNBC: “Elizabeth Warren insists again: I’m not running for president”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/elizabeth-warren-insists-again-im-not-running-president>*

By Aliyah Frumin

December 15, 2014, 11:29 a.m. EST

Elizabeth Warren is once again insisting she’s not running for president in
2016. Still, Warren’s backers — who see her as a more progressive
alternative to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — continue to hold
out hope.

The Massachusetts senator, whose profile has grown following her recent
effort to diminish Wall Street’s influence in the party, was asked by NPR
on Monday about progressive groups that have continued to encourage her to
make a bid for the Oval Office. “I’m not running for president,” insisted
Warren.

“That’s not what we’re doing. We had a really important fight in the United
States Congress just this past week. And I’m putting all my energy into
that fight and to see what happens after this,” she said.

NPR’s Steve Inskeep noted in Warren’s answer that, “You’re putting that in
the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?” to which Warren
repeated, “I am not running for president.” Inskeep continued, “You’re not
putting a ‘never’ on that.” Warren insisted once again, “I am not running
for president. You want me to put an exclamation point on the end?”

A group of more than 300 former Obama staffers organized by the super PAC
Ready For Warren recently wrote an open letter urging the Democrat to make
a bid for the 2016 race. In addition, the liberal grassroots organization
MoveOn.org has launched an initiative to draft Warren, and it plans on
hosting a rally in the political battleground state of Iowa later this week.

The freshman senator made a name for herself as a pugilistic populist
unafraid of battering Wall Street with progressive rhetoric. Last week, she
led liberal opposition to the Obama-approved $1.1 trillion government
spending bill and focused her scathing criticism on a provision that would
weaken the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law. The legislation passed on
Saturday night despite Warren’s efforts.

She has also spoken out against Obama’s nomination of Antonio Weiss as an
undersecretary for the Treasury Department, insisting that Weiss, currently
the head of global investment banking at Lazard, is too deeply entrenched
with Wall Street.

Despite Warren taking issue with both the spending bill and the Weiss
nomination, the White House insisted on Friday that Warren and the
president have a good relationship. “I continue to believe that Sen. Warren
and the president have the same kinds of goal and priorities,” White House
spokesman Josh Earnest said on Friday, adding he thinks “those shared
values will be on display over the next couple of years as well.”

*Vox: “Elizabeth Warren says she's not running for president. Should we
believe her?”
<http://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/7393749/elizabeth-warren-not-running>*

By Andrew Prokop

December 15, 2014, 11:20 a.m. EST

Last week, several liberal groups and hundreds of former Obama campaign
staffers called on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to make a 2016 presidential bid.
But in an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep: this morning, Elizabeth
Warren said four times that she's not running for president  — as she's
said many, many times before. Here are the key new quotes:

"I'm not running for president...

...I told them, 'I'm not running for president.'

...I am not running for president...

...I am not running for president..."

Sure, that may seem definitive to a casual reader. But as Warren has many
times before, she couches her declaration only in the present tense — "I am
not running" — rather than going further and saying "I will not run" or "I
will never run."

This is absolutely a deliberate decision on Warren's part — Jeff Zeleny of
ABC News pressed Warren on her word choice earlier this year, and she
continued to studiously stick to the present tense. That means she's
choosing not to rule out a future run (Warren would be 71 for the 2020
election), or even a 2016 run.

Politicians change their minds when circumstances change

Politicians' denials of interest in running for president are often later
contradicted. In February of 2011, Rick Perry was asked if he'd run for
president, and responded: "No, no, no, no, no." He jumped into the race
just six months later. Chris Christie offered similarly adamant denials
through much of that year, but when donors tried to coax him into the race,
he spent two months seriously considering it a bid before again opting
against it. And then there was Barack Obama, who repeatedly said he
wouldn't run for president in until he began floating a bid in late 2006.

In each case, the situation changed. Mitt Romney looked like a strong
frontrunner early in the year, and scared off challengers. But his poll
numbers remained tepid into the summer, and several key elements of the
party worried about his changes — so Perry and Christie saw a potential
opportunity. For Obama, as Bush's popularity plummeted and the Iraq war
situation got worse and worse, his chances to supplant the expected
frontrunner Hillary Clinton looked better and better.

The difference for the Democrats this time around is that Hillary Clinton's
poll numbers for the primary are actually extremely good — far better than
her own polling in 2008, or Romney's in 2012. She's also winning
endorsements from various party figures even though she's not yet running.

So, if these circumstances change — if Hillary doesn't run, or her standing
in the polls begins to plummet — it seems conceivable that Warren could
heed the calls of various activists and jump into the race. But if Warren
thought a presidential bid looked like a promising and appealing prospect
under current conditions, she'd be floating the possibility of a run now,
like Jeb Bush is. For the moment, it's best to take her at her word that
she's focused on the Senate.

*The Atlantic: “The Art of Avoiding a Presidential Bid”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/elizabeth-warren-presidential-bid-2016-campaign-ready-for-warren/383753/>*

By Russell Berman

December 15, 2014, 11:21 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] "I am not running for president," Massachusetts Senator
Elizabeth Warren said. Does that mean she won't? A linguistic journey

For big-name politicians, there is a certain technique to answering the
question, "Will you run for president?" Tense, in particular, is important.

Elizabeth Warren, the rising liberal star of the Senate, has had quite a
bit of practice in the last year, and she has been remarkably consistent.
"I am not running for president," she will usually say. Sometimes she'll
add a note of insistence, as she did on Monday when she asked an NPR
reporter if she should "put an exclamation point at the end."

Seems pretty clear, right? She's not running.

Well, technically, nobody (of note) is running for president right now. Not
Hillary Clinton. Not Jeb Bush. Not Rand Paul. And not even Jim Webb, who
has formed an exploratory committee but is not formally running for
president. So as NPR's Steve Inskeep correctly recognized, the operative
question for a politician like Warren is not, "Are you running for
president?" but "Will you run for president?" And that is a query the
Massachusetts Democrat does not seem quite ready to answer, at least in the
most definitive way.

Warren's answers are important, because as last week's fight over a $1
trillion spending bill showed, she remains as popular and influential among
the Democratic Party's liberal base as she was when she burst onto the
political stage more than five years ago. The Ready for Warren campaign has
gained steam in its bid to draft her into the 2016 White House race as a
progressive challenger to Clinton, and Democratic leaders in the Senate
recently added her to their team in recognition of her status within their
diminished caucus.

Should Warren be taken at her oft-repeated word that she's not preparing a
presidential bid? Of course. But she has stopped well short of the magic
words, famously uttered by the Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman
130 years ago, "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if
elected." And recall another popular, liberal senator, who went even
further than Warren in disavowing a presidential bid around this time nine
years ago. That was Barack Obama, who when asked in January of 2006 by the
late Tim Russert if he would run for president—or vice president—in 2008,
replied: "I will not." A year later he was announcing his campaign.

Warren's wiggle room doesn't mean she'll be challenging Clinton in 2016.
But it ensures she'll keep getting the question for another few months.

*BuzzFeed: “New Jewish Progressive Firm Launches After Split”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/new-jewish-progressive-firm-launches-after-split>*

By Rosie Gray

December 15, 2014, 9:33 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Rabinowitz and Keyak plan to take an aggressive progressive
approach to pro-Israel politics. “Jews are Democrats, and they will be
again in two years, and they just are.”

WASHINGTON — Longtime pro-Israel Democratic operative Steve Rabinowitz is
launching a new firm with a new business partner after the contentious
break up last year with his former partner.

Rabinowitz and Aaron Keyak, who left his job as Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s
communications director to launch the new venture, will announce the birth
of their communications firm Bluelight Strategies on Monday. Bluelight will
officially begin in its new iteration in January. The announcement will
take place at the annual “Latkes and Vodkas” holiday party, which holds a
certain symbolic significance: It’s the 20th anniversary of the event which
used to be held by Rabinowitz and Matt Dorf, his former partner who broke
off to start his own firm last year. Rabinowitz kept the party as part of
the split.

“It’s time to hit refresh,” Rabinowitz told BuzzFeed News on Sunday. “I’m
thrilled to have Aaron coming on, we’ve worked together more than once
before,” he said, citing their work on “The Hub,” an operation during the
2012 campaign designed to keep Jewish voters on the Democrats’ side during
the election.

The Hub was “such a success, I feel like we’re getting the band back
together,” Rabinowitz said.

“Bringing on Aaron Keyak to his new venture, Bluelight Strategies is a
smart move on Steve’s part and will bring great energy to this new
project,” Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
said in a statement, citing Keyak’s work on Capitol Hill and the Hub as
well as the National Jewish Democratic Council. “I look forward to the next
set of contributions Steve and Aaron will bring to liberal causes and the
faith-based community.”

Of the name’s significance, Rabinowitz said, “The blue is progressive
politics in America, and you know, the Jews can think it’s Jewish too if
they want.”

The firm will focus on progressive issues, both foreign policy and
otherwise. Rabinowitz and Keyak say their clients include environmental
clients in North Carolina and upstate New York, as well as the Jewish
Federations of North America and its Jewish community relations councils, a
university in Israel, the Times of Israel, the Israel Policy Forum, and the
Religious Action Center, Reform Judaism’s political arm.

“Look, there’s no getting around the fact that half the staff and half the
clients walked away with Matt,” Rabinowitz said. “But we have a bunch of
old clients, a bunch of new clients, old staff, new staff, brand new staff.”

It’s an “exciting opportunity to start fresh, to start anew,” Rabinowitz
said. “And to not have it be all about me. It doesn’t need to be Rabinowitz
Communications anymore.”

“Or Rabinowitz-Keyak,” Keyak said.

Bluelight is also gearing up for Hillary Clinton’s presumptive 2016
presidential effort. Rabinowitz is a veteran of Bill Clinton’s White House
and earlier this year launched “Jewish Americans Ready for Hillary,” a
branch of the larger Ready for Hillary draft-Clinton campaign.

“Steve is a longtime member of Clintonland,” Keyak said. “And so when it
comes to the various communities we’re involved in, especially in the
Jewish and pro-Israel communities, we’re going to be all about Hillaryland.”

“They’re good partners, and they know the community,” Ann Lewis, a former
Clinton White House communications director and senior adviser to Clinton’s
2008 campaign. “And that can be very valuable because sometimes people come
along who want to tell you they do, but Steve and Aaron both have a deep
experience with a wide range, both of organizations and again of
individuals.”

Bluelight is launching in a fraught time for pro-Israel progressives, as
recent polls show signs of a partisan divide on Israel and a two-state
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict looks farther away than ever
after this past year’s failed peace talks led by the Obama administration.
But the pair are convinced that the Jewish vote will remain Democratic.

“I hear this meme every two years,” Rabinowitz said. “Every two years my
Republican Jewish friends say this is the year that Jews are going to tilt
Republican or tilt politically conservative. And then every subsequent
November, it turns out not to be true.”

“Jews are Democrats, and they’re going to be again in two years, and they
just are,” Rabinowitz said.

“As Democrats we’re going to take no back seat to Republicans on really any
issue, but especially within the pro-Israel community,” Keyak said.

“Some dynamics are changing; most notably, a growing, vigorous debate, with
articulate conservative voices,” Lewis said in an email. “(We are not just
people of the book, but the website.) But by Election Day, majority of
Jewish voters will support Democratic candidates.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “A new 2016 poll has Joe Biden at 2
percent. Really.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/15/a-new-2016-poll-has-joe-biden-at-2-percent-really/>*

By Aaron Blake

December 15, 2014, 1:50 p.m. EST

Joe Biden is a sitting, two-term vice president of the United States -- a
position that often entitles you to frontrunner status in your party's next
presidential primary. And Biden has made clear that he's pretty interested
in giving it a go.

A new poll from Monmouth University, though, should give him some pause. It
shows that very same Joe Biden languishing badly in the 2016 primary. In
fact, he's at just 2 percent.

That leaves him tied with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the socialist independent
senator from Vermont. Given that the poll has a 5 percent margin of error,
it's also statistically possible that Biden is actually at 0 percent
(again, technically speaking).

Now, to be fair to the VP, this poll is an outlier. It has a very high
number of undecideds -- 32 percent -- and 7 percent opt for "no one"
(Update: Steven Shepard points out this is because candidate names weren't
read to people), which depresses the vote totals for all involved. Even
Hillary Clinton has her worst showing in any recent poll, at 48 percent.
(She has rarely been below 60 percent.)

In addition, a recent Quinnipiac University poll shows Biden leading the
Democratic primary if Clinton were to decide not to run. That's not nothing.

But in all likelihood, Clinton will run. And this is the sixth poll in the
last nine to show the vice president in the single digits. Even as
Clinton's numbers have come back to Earth, somewhat, Biden isn't looking
any stronger.

The reason, as we've written before, is that Biden just isn't seen as very
presidential. In fact, only 51 percent of Democrats in a Q poll last year
said they thought Biden would make a good president. Among independents,
about three-quarters said that he would not.

This new Monmouth poll tells a similar tale. It asked Democratic primary
voters to rate each candidate  either favorable or unfavorable. The most
unfavorable: Joe Biden, at 32 percent. That's about three times Clinton's
unfavorable rating (11 percent).

Biden might well run for president. If he does, though, he'll have a huge
amount of work to do fixing his brand.