Subject: Correct The Record Monday December 22, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:45:32 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday December 22, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Politico: “Guy Cecil won't manage Clinton 2016 campaign”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/guy-cecil-hillary-clinton-113731.html?hp=r1_3>*

“Guy Cecil, a campaign hand for Hillary Clinton in 2008 who was mentioned
as a potential campaign manager if she runs again, is planning to help the
former Secretary of State outside of any official campaign structure in
2016, POLITICO has learned.”

*National Journal: “Jeb, Rand, Marco Exit 2014 Strong. Hillary, Not So
Much.”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/jeb-rand-marco-exit-2014-strong-hillary-not-so-much-20141222>*

“Make no mistake: Clinton is still far and away the front-runner to win the
Democratic nomination, and any Republican would have a difficult time
defeating her in a general election. But as Clinton shook the rust off and
reentered the political fray this year, her favorability rating came back
down to earth.”

*Politico: “Dixie rising”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dixie-rising-113734.html>*

“The primary calendars that are set by the GOP secretaries of state will
apply to both Democrats and Republicans.”

*Huffington Post: “Politico's Laura McGann Joins Vox To Lead Political
Coverage”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/21/laura-mcgann-vox-politics_n_6362452.html>*

“Politico deputy managing editor Laura McGann is joining Vox as the site’s
first political editor.”

*Mother Jones: “Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He's Awful on
Climate Change.”
<http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/jim-webb-climate-change>*

“There's at least one key issue, however, on which Webb's record is far
from progressive: global warming.”

*Washington Examiner: “Elizabeth Warren opens the Ted Cruz playbook to
steal Hillary Clinton's spotlight”
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/elizabeth-warren-opens-the-ted-cruz-playbook/article/2557698?utm_content=buffer12f65&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

“While Hillary Clinton is remaining relatively quiet, hoping to keep her
powder dry in advance of the presidential election cycle, Elizabeth Warren
is growing louder.”

*Articles:*

*Politico: “Guy Cecil won't manage Clinton 2016 campaign”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/guy-cecil-hillary-clinton-113731.html?hp=r1_3>*

By Maggie Haberman

December 21, 2014, 5:52 p.m. EST

Guy Cecil, a campaign hand for Hillary Clinton in 2008 who was mentioned as
a potential campaign manager if she runs again, is planning to help the
former Secretary of State outside of any official campaign structure in
2016, POLITICO has learned.

Instead, Cecil plans to help her in a non-campaign capacity.

“I have spent time with Secretary Clinton encouraging her to run because I
believe our country needs her vision and leadership,” Cecil said in a
statement describing how intends to aid Clinton if she runs. “I have
offered her my full support and will be her most vocal volunteer, but after
10 years of some of the toughest campaigns around, I am eager to try my
hand at something new and to serve my country in a different way. Even
better, I will finally get to take a long delayed honeymoon with my
husband.”

Cecil until recently was executive director of the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee. He was one of a small number of campaign advisers to
whom Clinton turned at the end of 2007 to rescue her effort as gaps in
Clinton’s field operation became apparent. Cecil has also had a strong
relationship with Bill Clinton since then.

Cecil spoke repeatedly with Hillary Clinton during and since the midterm
campaign. The focus of those conversations was about the midterm races and
lessons for her potential next presidential campaign. In those talks, he
had discussed wanting to help her from outside the campaign.

“Hillary Clinton has always felt that Guy Cecil is as good as they come,”
said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said, calling him “supremely smart,
savvy, and always focused on the big picture.”

Clinton “knows there are few champions in politics today as tirelessly
devoted to the protection and advancement of Democratic values as Guy is,”
Merrill added. “And no matter what, she will always count on Guy to
continue that work for her, for the Democratic Party, and for America.”

For his next move, Cecil has met with a number of non-governmental
organizations and nonprofits. He’s also discussed a potential political
firm based in Washington, and there have been discussions about a potential
role for him in a super PAC backing a Clinton campaign.

Without Cecil looking to manage the effort, the already-small field of
potential campaign managers who are discussed shrinks further. Robby Mook,
who managed Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s campaign, is a frontrunner.
People such as EMILY’s List head Stephanie Schriock and former Clinton
campaign adviser and California-based strategist Ace Smith have been
mentioned as well.

Cecil’s statement comes as the contours of Clinton’s likely campaign will
begin to take shape early next year. Her anticipated campaign chair, John
Podesta, is expected to step down from his current job as White House
counselor sometime after Obama’s State of the Union address. But beyond
Podesta, it isn’t immediately clear how she plans to fill most of the
roughly half-dozen top jobs within her campaign.

Clinton’s timetable for announcing a campaign has been a source of
speculation among Democrats looking to work for her and reporters covering
her for months. Her paid speech schedule at one point was cited by some
supporters as a clue toward her intentions. The speeches are a red herring,
in that she can always cancel them if she decides to declare before they
take place.

But they reflect a mindset of a potential candidate who opted against
sending a signal about her intentions this year.

Cecil used to work at the Dewey Square Group, the consulting firm where
Bill and Hillary Clinton confidante Minyon Moore works. The firm has been
quietly working on portions of the pre-Clinton campaign, according to
several people familiar with its efforts, although firm officials have
insisted they are not doing anything formal.

*National Journal: “Jeb, Rand, Marco Exit 2014 Strong. Hillary, Not So
Much.”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/jeb-rand-marco-exit-2014-strong-hillary-not-so-much-20141222>*

By Adam Wollner

December 22, 2014

[Subtitle:] Some presidential contenders capitalized in 2014. But many look
worse today than a year ago.

With 2014 just about in the books, the next presidential election is set to
shift into high gear in the new year. Two candidates—Jeb Bush and Jim
Webb—are already exploring bids, and the political world is waiting for
dozens of other potentials to make their intentions known in the coming
weeks and months.

But just because no one else is technically "exploring" a bid at this point
doesn't mean others haven't been considering a White House run for the
better part of the past year. 2014 saw a flurry of activity from
politicians jockeying for early position in the 2016 field at the Capitol,
in statehouses, and on the midterm trail all across the country. Some
emerged in a more fortunate position than others.

Here's a look at which possible presidential contenders are better off
today than they were on Jan. 1—and which are worse off.

BETTER OFF

Jeb Bush: As the first Republican to announce he is "actively exploring" a
presidential run, Bush has secured the inside track on becoming the GOP's
establishment candidate. His early move will allow him to set the tone at
the outset of the party's nominating contest: Bush is expected to cut into
the bases of several potential rivals, and he may force other candidates to
alter their timetables. Still unknown is how Bush's more moderate stances
on immigration and education will play in a GOP primary, and how he will
perform on the campaign trail 12 years after his last run for elected
office. But at the moment, Bush is the slight front-runner for the
Republican nomination—a position he was not in a year ago, when it was
unclear if he would even go for it.

Rand Paul: At the beginning of the year, Paul was still widely seen as a
fringe candidate who wouldn't be able to compete in a modern-day Republican
primary. Paul still has not totally shed that reputation, but he is now
more widely accepted within the mainstream of the party than he was in
January. Paul made inroads with members of the party's establishment wing,
including Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and directed a
significant effort toward courting minorities and young voters. Foreign
policy remains a weakness for Paul, who struggled to articulate his
position during the heat of the ISIS debate. Paul's path to the GOP
nomination still isn't 100 percent clear, but he's more in the mix than he
was 12 months ago.

Marco Rubio: Looking to put his failed 2013 immigration reform push behind
him, Rubio went out of his way to position himself as a foreign policy
candidate this year. He gave a series of speeches critiquing President
Obama's policy while establishing himself as a hawk on the topic. Now,
Rubio has become the chief opponent of Obama's plan to normalize relations
with Cuba. Rubio also used his background as the son of immigrants to
develop a message on economic mobility. Bush's announcement will certainly
make it tougher for Rubio to attract the money he would need from donors in
Florida. But he already has a strong political team in place and the
ability to be a top-tier candidate.

Scott Walker: Coming off his third statewide victory in a purple state in
just four years, Walker is riding high heading into 2015. For a brief
period in the fall, he looked vulnerable against Democrat Mary Burke, but
thanks to his immense popularity among Republicans, Walker came out on top
yet again. The governor remains a favorite of both the business and
tea-party factions of the party, boasting a fiscal record that few other
Republicans can match. While Walker looks like a strong presidential
candidate on paper, it's not clear how he will be received outside of
Wisconsin. A few potential pitfalls await him in the new year, but of all
the Midwestern governors weighing a White House run, he has emerged as the
most formidable.

John Kasich: Speaking of Midwestern governors, Kasich was expected to win
reelection at the beginning of 2014, but no one saw his 31-point trouncing
of Democrat Ed Fitzgerald coming. That margin was in large part due to
Fitzgerald's weaknesses as a candidate, but Kasich can now add a second win
in the presidential swing state of Ohio to an already compelling resume.
His support of Medicaid expansion and recent comments expressing an
openness to a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, though,
could come back to haunt him in a GOP primary. Still, Kasich was almost
completely off the presidential radar in January and is now, at the very
least, a dark horse heading into 2015.

Rick Perry: Perry is in a better position than a year ago for one simple
reason: He had nowhere to go but up. His disastrous 2012 campaign still
haunts him, but he has gone to great lengths to improve his image ahead of
an expected second bid for the White House in 2016. Perry has surrounded
himself with a new team of advisers, met with some of the party's top
policy experts, and spent more time in Iowa this year than any other
Republican considering a presidential campaign. Perry was indicted on
abuse-of-power allegations in August, but that seems to have only
strengthened his standing among the GOP base. Bottom line: Perry may never
fully recover from 2012, but he's at least being taken seriously as a
contender again.

WORSE OFF

Hillary Clinton: Make no mistake: Clinton is still far and away the
front-runner to win the Democratic nomination, and any Republican would
have a difficult time defeating her in a general election. But as Clinton
shook the rust off and reentered the political fray this year, her
favorability rating came back down to earth. Additionally, as Obama's
popularity plummeted, Republicans attempted to link the former secretary of
State to her former boss at every turn. She also endured bad press
throughout the year over her tour on the paid speaking circuit. And while a
formidable Democratic challenger hasn't emerged, Clinton has yet to clearly
outline the basis for her expected campaign. She'll have plenty of time to
do that in 2015 if she decides to run, but overall, Clinton is in a
slightly less favorable position than she was a year ago.

Chris Christie: No one had a worse start to the year than Christie. The
George Washington Bridge scandal has permanently tarnished his image, and
with federal indictments possibly around the corner, it might be just the
beginning. Plus, New Jersey's economy remains sluggish, and the state's
credit was downgraded for the eighth time under Christie's watch. One
bright spot: Under his chairmanship of the Republican Governors
Association, Republicans won 24 of the 36 gubernatorial races on the
ballot, including elections in deep-blue states such as Illinois and
Maryland. Christie entered the year as a—if not the—top contender for the
GOP nomination. He has some serious work to do if he wants to reclaim that
status in 2015.

Ted Cruz: Cruz may still be the tea party's favorite son, but the Texas
senator's star power has diminished since the days of the 2013 government
shutdown (his failed effort to torpedo the Senate spending bill this month
encapsulated that.) Cruz lost two key political staffers last month,
raising questions about whether he can put together a team with big-league
talent. Cruz is well positioned to be the evangelical candidate in 2016,
but that's no longer enough to automatically become a top contender for the
GOP nomination. He hasn't been able to expand his base, and as someone who
has relished being a thorn in the side of the Republican establishment, it
will be a tall order for Cruz to accomplish that in 2015.

Bobby Jindal: Jindal, once seen as a rising star in the Republican Party,
has had his eye on the White House for some time now, but he struggled this
year to gain any traction in a crowded GOP field. The Louisiana governor
spent lots of time outside of his home state in 2014, campaigning for
Republicans, attending state party dinners, giving speeches, and appearing
on the Sunday talk shows, yet he is still largely unknown nationally. In
Louisiana, Jindal's approval rating dropped and he received blowback over
reversing his position on Common Core. Jindal's efforts to appeal to both
the establishment and the tea-party wings of the party haven't gotten him
anywhere, so he may need to find a new approach heading into 2015.

Martin O'Malley: Few worked harder than O'Malley to become a legitimate
presidential contender this year, yet he's still in rougher shape now that
he was in January. O'Malley spent the year stumping and raising money for
Democrats (especially those in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) on
the 2014 ballot, but the majority of them wound up losing. Back home in
Maryland, O'Malley's favorability rating dipped underwater and his
lieutenant governor lost the election to succeed him in a state where
registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1. On top of all that,
O'Malley is still polling in the low single digits among Democrats
nationally and is now expected to push back his timeline for announcing a
possible presidential run.

*Politico: “Dixie rising”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dixie-rising-113734.html>*

By James Hohmann

December 22, 2014, 5:33 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] How the Deep South is trying to game the GOP primary.

The Deep South has elected Republicans to every top office in the region.
Now it wants to be sure that clout extends to the choice of the GOP’s 2016
presidential nominee.

Officials in five Southern states — Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi,
Alabama and Arkansas — are coordinating to hold their primary on March 1,
2016. Texas and Florida are considering also holding a primary the same day
but may wait until later in the month. Either way, March 1 would be a
Southern Super Tuesday, voting en masse on the heels of Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

The joint primary, which appears increasingly likely to happen, would
present a crucial early test for Republican White House hopefuls among the
party’s most conservative voters. It could, in theory, boost a conservative
alternative to a Republican who has emerged as the establishment favorite
from the four states that kick off the nominating process. But one risk is
that the deep-red complexion of the Southern states’ primary electorates
would empower a candidate who can’t win in general-election battlegrounds
like Ohio and Colorado.

Republicans from the South say their states make up the heart of the GOP
and it’s only fitting that the region have commensurate say over who the
party puts forward to compete for the White House. Proponents are already
dubbing March 1 the “SEC primary,” after the NCAA’s athletic powerhouse
Southeastern Conference.

“We think it’s important that the next president of the United States – he
or she, Democrat or Republican – come through our states and speak with our
citizens about our issues,” said Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert
Hosemann. “My gut feeling is this will happen, and you’ll see candidates
start to spend a lot more time in the South in the next six months.”

The Republican National Committee changed its rules this year to try
pushing back the Iowa caucuses from January in 2012 until February in 2016.
New penalties also make it virtually impossible for any state other than
New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to vote before the end of that
month.

The Southern states, which are preparing to lock in March 1 through a
combination of legislative and executive actions, want to be first out of
the gate afterwards.

“It gives them a real power punch right after the early states get out of
the way,” said former Tennessee Republican chairman Chip Saltsman, who
managed Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. “Someone who can come
out of February having won two of the four early states and then run the
table in the South would be set up with huge momentum.”

Mitt Romney struggled in the Deep South in 2012. Newt Gingrich won South
Carolina and his home state of Georgia, while Rick Santorum carried
Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. The Southern states planning to hold
the March 1 primary could pose similar problems for a candidate seen as
insufficiently conservative or too close to the party’s establishment wing.

“This is a conservative area, and conservative candidates would probably do
quite well,” said Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett.

Florida and Texas are much bigger states with a lot more delegates at
stake, but each is very expensive to advertise in. More importantly, both
are home to favorite sons who could scare others from competing against
them: Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio hail from Florida, while Ted Cruz and Rick
Perry are from Texas.

Some GOP insiders believe that Florida and Texas will opt to push back
their primaries until later in March. Under the new RNC rules, states that
wait until March 15 can have “winner take all” primaries, with the
candidate receiving the most votes collecting all of a state’s delegates.
The potential presidential candidates from Florida and Texas are likely to
prefer that. In 2012, Florida lost half its delegates by voting before it
was allowed to.

It will be very difficult for a candidate who does not win in one of the
first four states to survive until March as a viable contender. Money dries
up, endorsements go elsewhere and volunteers lose their enthusiasm. So the
test in the South will likely pit the winners of the first states against
each other.

It might also have unintended effects.

In 1988, Democrats who then controlled the region decided their states
should vote as a bloc on the second Tuesday in March. They hoped to boost a
moderate or centrist candidate who would be more competitive in the general
election than a candidate from the Northeastern like then-Massachusetts
Gov. Michael Dukakis. Then-Tennessee Sen. Al Gore wound up winning five
Southern states that day, but Jesse Jackson – helped by large numbers of
African-American voters — also won five. Vice President George H.W. Bush,
meanwhile, won all the states in the region and soon after secured the
Republican nomination.

“It kind of backfired on them,” said Josh Putnam, who teaches political
science at Appalachian State University and closely tracks the primary
calendar on his Frontloading blog.

The RNC rule requiring that states voting on March 1 award their delegates
proportionally increases the likelihood of a similar situation in 2016,
with different states choosing different candidates and no decisive
statement out of the region.

The primary calendars that are set by the GOP secretaries of state will
apply to both Democrats and Republicans. In the marathon 2008 fight between
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Southern states wound up playing
important roles, but at least at the moment, Clinton appears to have a much
clearer path to the nomination.

An open question is whether the Southern states will have March 1 to
themselves. There’s little to prevent other states from scheduling
primaries the same day.

Bennett, the Alabama Secretary of State, worries that Southern states’
power will be diluted if the day is too crowded. He pointed to Super
Tuesday in 2008, when 24 states voted on Feb. 5. In 2012, parties
successfully discouraged such front-loading. The most states to vote on any
one day that year was 10, on March 6.

“If it’s limited to six or eight states, I think it would bring candidates
to the southern part of the United States,” said Bennett. “The problem with
the old Super Tuesday is … that it really didn’t accomplish the goal of
bringing candidates before our voters. It was too spread out.”

He said he fears that including Florida and Texas in the March 1 primary
would “dilute” the sway of the smaller Southern states. “I favor a limited
number,” he said.

Putnam does not expect a March 1 cluster. More likely, he says, is a series
of semi-regional primaries. Michigan, Illinois and Missouri might all vote
on March 15, creating a Midwest primary. A few Western states may team up
to vote on another Tuesday later in March.

“They won’t be alone, but as March 1 is shaping up now, it’s taking a
decidedly Southern flavor,” said Putnam.

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who dreamed up the “SEC primary”
branding, said he doesn’t care who the nominee ends up being. He just wants
his state to be relevant in presidential politics.

“Hopefully, from a selfish perspective, it makes Georgia’s voice count,
whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat,” Kemp said. “I don’t want to
vote after the nominee is chosen. Other folks in the South feel the same
way.”

*Huffington Post: “Politico's Laura McGann Joins Vox To Lead Political
Coverage”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/21/laura-mcgann-vox-politics_n_6362452.html>*

By Michael Calderone

December 21, 2014, 8:00 p.m. EST

NEW YORK -- Politico deputy managing editor Laura McGann is joining Vox as
the site’s first political editor.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, McGann suggested that Vox, the
general-interest site founded earlier this year by Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell
and Matt Yglesias, could make its coverage of the 2016 elections “distinct”
by emphasizing candidates' policy positions and offering readers contextual
information beyond the latest stump speech.

“You don’t need to write a brand-new story every time a candidate says
something,” McGann said.

Yet that's increasingly what happens during a presidential campaign, with
embedded TV producers and political reporters live-tweeting a candidate's
remarks and immediately filing stories online. The 2012 presidential cycle
seemed defined, at times, by excessive coverage of candidate "gaffes" and
fleeting outrage on Twitter.

Vox’s expansion of its political coverage is expected to keep in line with
the site’s core mission of explaining the news. Stories on Vox often
include a set of supplementary "index cards" that explain the context of a
debate or news event currently making headlines.

Similarly, McGann, who will start at Vox on Jan. 5, suggested the site
would create political content of value to readers beyond the campaign
story of the moment. For instance, she noted that Hillary Clinton, the
presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner, has been expressing views on foreign
policy for decades. So in covering Clinton's latest foreign policy
statement, Vox would presumably offer additional resources, like the index
cards or other online tools, in an attempt to explain how Clinton's most
recent remarks exist within a broader worldview. That supplemental material
can be updated and used in future stories.

In interviews, Klein, a former blogger and columnist for The Washington
Post, has described such content as "persistent," meaning that it has a
longer lifespan than just the latest news cycle. McGann also used the term
in discussing the site's political coverage plans.

For its 2016 coverage, McGann said Vox intends "to explain to the reader
what is significant about these candidates’ policy perspectives" and "why
they should be paying attention to specific candidates."

Currently, Vox's politics and policy team includes seven reporters, but
McGann said it's expected to grow. She also stressed that Vox, unlike some
news organizations, doesn’t draw sharp distinctions between covering
politics and policy. “We don't want politics and policy reporters to live
in separate silos, as they have in other newsrooms,” she said.

In a statement, Klein described McGann as “one of the most visionary
editors in the business, and one of the best political minds in Washington.”

“She has big plans for Vox Politics," said Klein. "Under her direction,
we’re really going to be able to give our audience a political resource
unlike what they can get anywhere else.”

McGann, who spent four years at Politico, has also reported and edited at
Talking Points Memo, Nieman Journalism Lab, MSNBC and The Washington
Independent, a nonprofit news site that shuttered in 2010.

She’s the third high-ranking Politico editor to leave in the past week,
with White House editor Dan Berman joining National Journal and deputy
managing editor Gregg Birnbaum heading to the New York Daily News. On
Friday, Politico editor Susan Glasser touted several recent hires and said
the company is going through a period of “growth and rising ambition."

Vox’s approach to 2016 coverage will surely be different from that of
Politico, which upped the metabolism of political reporting during the 2008
election by breaking any and all campaign news online. While Vox's focus
may be on explaining the news, McGann indicated the site will also try
breaking some stories. For example, McGann said she'd like Vox to compete
on first getting details when a campaign is rolling out a new policy
proposal.

Some aspects of Vox's 2016 coverage have yet to be determined, such as
whether or not the site will assign reporters to follow candidates on the
campaign trail. McGann said “there’s room there to experiment” and the site
will figure out how, and when, stories can enhanced by having reporters on
the ground.

“We are definitely interested in travel,” she said, "but we’re not sure if
a traditional approach, to stick someone on the plane, is the best idea.”

*Mother Jones: “Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He's Awful on
Climate Change.”
<http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/jim-webb-climate-change>*

By Patrick Caldwell

December 22, 2014, 6:30 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The former Virginia senator has a record of standing up for
dirty energy.

Hillary Clinton may be dominating every poll of potential Democratic
hopefuls for the White House, but some progressives are desperate to find a
candidate who will challenge her from the left. Groups have sprung up to
encourage Elizabeth Warren to take a stab at the nomination, but with the
Massachusetts senator repeatedly saying she isn't running, liberal
activists will likely have to turn elsewhere—perhaps to socialist Sen.
Bernie Sanders (Vt.) or Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley—if they aren't
satisfied with Clinton. But so far, the only Democratic alternative
officially in the race is former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who launched an
exploratory committee in November.

A former Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, Webb is being
touted by some on the left as an Appalachian populist who could champion
causes Clinton would rather ignore. The Nation's William Greider, for
example, lauded Webb's presidential ambitions in a column headlined "Why
Jim Webb Could be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare." Greider praised
Webb's non-interventionist tendencies in foreign policy (Webb was a vocal
opponent of the Iraq War). "I think of him as a vanguard politician—that
rare type who is way out ahead of conventional wisdom and free to express
big ideas the media herd regards as taboo," Greider wrote, while
acknowledging that Webb was unlikely to win.

There's at least one key issue, however, on which Webb's record is far from
progressive: global warming. That's a big deal. Unlike Obamacare and
financial reform, much of the progress President Barack Obama has made on
climate change rests on of execution actions that his successor could undo.
At first glance, Webb might look like a typical Democrat when it comes to
environmental policy. The League of Conservation Voters gives him a
lifetime score of 81 percent—on par with Hillary Clinton's 82 percent
rating, though far below Sanders at 95 percent. And unlike most of the
Republican presidential hopefuls, he acknowledges that humans are causing
climate change. He even supports solving the problem—at least in theory.

But when it came to actual legislation, Webb used his six years in the US
Senate to stand in the way of Democratic efforts to combat climate change.
Virginia, after all, is a coal state, and Webb regularly stood up for the
coal industry, earning the ire of environmentalists. As Grist's Ben Adler
succinctly summed it up, "Jim Webb sucks on climate change."

Perhaps Webb's biggest break with the standard Democratic position on
climate is his vocal opposition to the use of EPA rules under the Clean Air
Act to limit carbon emissions from coal power plants. Earlier this year,
the Obama administration proposed regulations that could cut existing coal
plant emissions by as much as 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Those
new rules became a key factor in the historic climate deal Obama recently
reached with China, and they will almost certainly figure prominently in
next year's Paris climate negotiations. But back in 2011, Webb went to the
floor of the Senate to denounce the idea that the federal government has
the power to regulate carbon emissions under existing law. "I am not
convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a
dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as
carbon dioxide," he said.

Webb also supported legislation from fellow coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller
(D-W.Va.) that would have delayed the EPA's authority to add new rules
governing coal plant emissions. "This regulatory framework is so broad and
potentially far reaching that it could eventually touch nearly every facet
of this nation's economy, putting unnecessary burdens on our industries and
driving many businesses overseas through policies that have been
implemented purely at the discretion of the executive branch and absent the
clearly stated intent of the Congress," he said in a release.

But Webb's opposition to major climate initiatives wasn't limited to
executive action. In 2008, Democrats (and a few Republicans) in Congress
tried to pass a cap-and-trade bill that was intended to slow global warming
by putting a price on carbon emissions. The bill would have likely been
vetoed by then-President George W. Bush, but it never got that far. Webb
was part of a cohort of Senate Democrats who blocked the measure. "We need
to be able to address a national energy strategy and then try to work on
environmental efficiencies as part of that plan," Webb told Politico at the
time. "We can't just start with things like emission standards at a time
when we're at a crisis with the entire national energy policy."

When cap and trade came up again in 2009—this time with Barack Obama in the
Oval Office—Webb again played a major role in preventing the bill from
passing the Senate. "It's an enormously complex thing to implement," Webb
said of the 2009 bill. "There are a lot of people in the middle between the
'cap' and the 'trade' that are going to make a lot of money." Webb also
voted to prevent Senate Democrats from using budget reconciliation
procedures to pass a cap and trade bill with simple majority, essentially
dooming any hope for serious climate legislation during the first years of
Obama's presidency.

That same year, Obama attended a United Nations summit in Copenhagen in a
failed bid to hammer out an international climate accord. Obama sought a
limited, nonbinding agreement in which the US and other countries would
pledge to reduce their CO2 output. Webb wasn't having it. Before Obama went
abroad, Webb sent the president a letter asserting that he lacked the
"unilateral power" to make such a deal.

Coal wasn't the only polluting industry that found an ally in Webb. After
the BP oil spill in 2010, the Obama administration put a hold on new
offshore oil drilling, which provoked Webb. "In placing such a broad
moratorium on offshore drilling, the Obama Administration has over-reacted
to the circumstances surrounding the Deepwater Horizon disaster," Webb said
in a press release. At other times, Webb championed drilling projects off
Virginia's coasts and voted regularly for bills that would expand the
territory in which oil companies could plant rigs offshore. "Unbelievable,"
the Sierra Club once remarked of Webb's support for offshore drilling. In
2012, Webb was one of just four Democrats in the Senate who voted to keep
tax loopholes for oil companies.

But it's Webb's support for coal that most concerns environmentalists. "Jim
Webb is an apologist for the coal industry," says Brad Johnson, a climate
activist who runs the website Hill Heat. "Unfortunately he doesn't seem to
realize that greenhouse pollution is the greatest threat we face to
economic justice in this nation."

*Washington Examiner: “Elizabeth Warren opens the Ted Cruz playbook to
steal Hillary Clinton's spotlight”
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/elizabeth-warren-opens-the-ted-cruz-playbook/article/2557698?utm_content=buffer12f65&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

By Rebecca Berg

December 21, 2014, 5:00 a.m. EST

While Hillary Clinton is remaining relatively quiet, hoping to keep her
powder dry in advance of the presidential election cycle, Elizabeth Warren
is growing louder.

Fresh off of leading a fight over a spending deal struck by congressional
lawmakers, which the White House supported, Warren this week pushed back
against a trade deal being negotiated by President Obama with Pacific
nations, warning it could hamper efforts to keep Wall Street in check.

"With millions of families still struggling to recover from the last
financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, we cannot afford a
trade deal that undermines the government's ability to protect the American
economy," read a letter signed by Warren and a few other senators.

Warren has said she is not currently running for president. But, whether
she is or not, her vocal defense of progressive policies is driving a wedge
in the Democratic Party, with tangible repercussions for the coming
presidential election.

Meanwhile, more Democrats are offering praise for Warren and what she
represents. This week, Rep. Keith Ellison, a prominent progressive among
House Democrats, gave a boost to the idea of Warren as a presidential
candidate and foil to Clinton.

“I would love to see Elizabeth Warren in this race. I think it would be
fantastic. I think that it would help the quality of the debate and she may
win,” Ellison said Thursday on a Democracy For America conference call,
MSNBC reported. “But even if she doesn’t, I think she’ll make Hillary
Clinton a better candidate.”

Clinton, for her part, is already well-liked among progressive Democrats,
polls show, and still holds a commanding lead among other potential
Democratic candidates, including Warren.

But, much as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made a name for himself last year and
stirred speculation about a potential presidential campaign by taking
ideological stands appealing to his party’s base, Warren might find greater
power and attention in the minority.

As a newly minted member of Senate Democratic leadership beginning next
month, Warren will have a sturdy platform from which to express her
positions — and, for as long as she is a potential candidate for president,
a megaphone.

“There’s an arc in Sen. Warren’s approach,” said Jim Manley, a Democratic
strategist and former aide to outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“She started off keeping her head down and trying to avoid the national
media, and now she’s picking and choosing her spots to elevate issues.”

*Calendar:*

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

·  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>)