Subject: Correct The Record Monday December 22, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:02:34 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

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

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Our veterans have served America –
and it is time that America served our veterans."@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-record-of-service-to-veterans/ …
<http://t.co/bSpDUIIA9i> [12/22/14, 1:11 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/547091971945152512>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> was given a lifetime service award by
@TAPS4America <https://twitter.com/TAPS4America> for her work with veterans
#HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-gets-close-candid-with-military-families#.juypA4Z5d
…
<http://t.co/0s4FWW4ayC> [12/22/14, 12:46 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/547085667633623040>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@allidablack
<https://twitter.com/allidablack> quotes @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>: We must "be clear-eyed [without]
losing sight of the world as we want it to be”
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/valley-views/2014/12/22/roosevelt-tenets-live-human-rights-day/20755547/
…
<http://t.co/vQY9FhYyBZ> [12/22/14, 12:22 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/547079627072876544>]

*Headlines:*

*Poughkeepsie Journal opinion: Allida Black: “Roosevelt tenets live on in
Human Rights Day”
<http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/valley-views/2014/12/22/roosevelt-tenets-live-human-rights-day/20755547/>*

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

*Wall Street Journal: “Little Crossover Appeal for Hillary Clinton, Jeb
Bush — WSJ/NBC Poll”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/22/little-crossover-appeal-for-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-wsjnbc-poll/?mod=djemCapitalJournalDaybreak&utm_content=buffer0146b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

“Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Bush is a lock to run, but, at this early
stage in the posturing, the poll results look much better for the former
secretary of state.”

*Boston Globe: “Clinton faces headwinds from liberals as Warren rises”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/12/21/hillary-clinton-likely-presidential-bid-runs-into-headwinds-from-liberals-who-back-sen-elizabeth-warren/sf2M2OwluGJgTp6DX2YDJJ/story.html>*

“Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said the two women have long fought
for the same ideals. Asked about the impact of Warren’s rise on a potential
Clinton bid, he said via e-mail, ‘We need more people like Elizabeth Warren
and those she inspires fighting for them.’”

*Politicker NJ: “Rutgers 2016 Poll of NJ voters: Clinton 49%, Christie 39%”
<http://politickernj.com/2014/12/rutgers-2016-poll-of-nj-voters-clinton-49-christie-39/>*

“In a 2016 mano-a-mano between Gov. Chris Christie and former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, New Jersey voters continue to give Clinton a
double-digit lead, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.”

*Time: “Hillary Clinton, Up, Up and Away”
<http://time.com/3643813/hillary-clinton-promises-upward-mobility/>*

“As she embarked on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates, speaking
gratis to voters, she dropped the milquetoast observations about American
foreign policy and focused instead on a single, overarching message: the
economic frustration of the American middle class.”

*CNN: “These 2016 long-shots think they can win?”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politics/2016-politics-long-shots/>*

“Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite for Democrats, though she
continues to eye Elizabeth Warren -- a huge political brand in her own
right.”

*Articles:*

*Poughkeepsie Journal opinion: Allida Black: “Roosevelt tenets live on in
Human Rights Day”
<http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/valley-views/2014/12/22/roosevelt-tenets-live-human-rights-day/20755547/>*

By Allida Black

December 21, 2014

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

It is a bold document, based on a single premise – that the “recognition of
the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world.”

Hyde Park’s Eleanor Roosevelt, who led the drafting and adoption of the
declaration, understood we are all members of the human family, and that
for governments to prosper and wars to cease, we must treat each other with
the same respect and candor that we treat our own families. She knew this
would not be easy or popular and that she would be accused of championing
ideals that could never be achieved. But she persisted; she knew that
without ideals, politics and policy are merely power games without a soul.

She urged America and the world to recognize that human rights “begin in
small places, close to home…the places where every man, woman and child
seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without
discrimination.” And that “unless these rights have meaning there, they
have little meaning anywhere.”

But she also knew that rights come with responsibilities. For rights to
exist here and around the world, we must recognize, implement and defend
them. As she often argued: “Without concerned citizen action to uphold them
close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”

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

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

It is hard, tiring work. It takes the courage to dream, the political
skills necessary to implement the dream, and a heart fierce enough to
continue the struggle.

Let us recommit to the rights of all members of the human family. Let us
hear Eleanor’s call.

*Dr. Allida Black is an Eleanor Roosevelt historian. She is a research
professor of history and international affairs at the George Washington
University in Washington, D.C. Eleanor Roosevelt’s Val-Kill, a national
historic site, is off Route 9G in Hyde Park.*

*Wall Street Journal: “Little Crossover Appeal for Hillary Clinton, Jeb
Bush — WSJ/NBC Poll”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/22/little-crossover-appeal-for-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-wsjnbc-poll/?mod=djemCapitalJournalDaybreak&utm_content=buffer0146b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

By Patrick O’Connor

December 22, 2014, 7:23 a.m. EST

It’s hard to find people open to supporting both Hillary Clinton and Jeb
Bush.

Despite claims the two potential White House hopefuls would bring some
crossover appeal to the next presidential race in 2016, only 8% of American
adults say they would be open to both, according to the results of the
latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. One in five people surveyed said
they couldn’t support either.

That’s not terribly surprising for America’s two reigning political
dynasties. Both families engender as much anger from opponents as they do
enthusiasm from supporters. But it suggests a contest between the two would
break along predictably partisan lines.

Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Bush is a lock to run, but, at this early
stage in the posturing, the poll results look much better for the former
secretary of state. Half of all American adults said they would be open to
supporting Mrs. Clinton, while 48% said they couldn’t.

Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, would start the race with 57% of
adults saying they wouldn’t be open to voting for him for president. Just
31% said they would. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, who scores well among Democrats,
a third of all Republicans said they wouldn’t vote for Mr. Bush.

One trend starting to emerge: Mrs. Clinton appeals to many of the same
groups as President Barack Obama, with some notable exceptions. Hart
Research Associates, the Democratic polling firm that conducts the Journal
survey with the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, compared Mrs.
Clinton’s support among 21 demographic groups with Mr. Obama’s support in
2012.

The numbers showed nearly identical, dismal levels of support for both Mrs.
Clinton and the president among white men (right around 35%), but Mrs.
Clinton far exceeds what the president tallied among white women, with 52%
saying they would be open to support her.

Mrs. Clinton would have to make up some ground to match Mr. Obama’s numbers
among black and Hispanic voters. But the former secretary of state has a
big edge among small-town and rural voters. Perhaps most interesting, Mrs.
Clinton does much better among Latino women than she does among Latino men.

The poll also found evidence that to win the presidency, Mrs. Clinton would
need to distinguish herself from the president. Some 22% of voters said
they would be open to supporting Mrs. Clinton but also want to see the next
president move in a different direction than the current officeholder.

*Boston Globe: “Clinton faces headwinds from liberals as Warren rises”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/12/21/hillary-clinton-likely-presidential-bid-runs-into-headwinds-from-liberals-who-back-sen-elizabeth-warren/sf2M2OwluGJgTp6DX2YDJJ/story.html>*

By Jessica Meyers

December 21, 2014

It has been a tough year for the Hillary Rodham Clinton juggernaut.

Her record as secretary of state was undercut by the rise of the Islamic
State and a breakdown in relations with Russia. Her much-awaited book
didn’t sell many copies. Her face graced the cover of this year’s
worst-selling issue of People magazine.

Then, during the last few weeks, a different juggernaut erupted — a liberal
campaign to persuade Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for
president.

One group, MoveOn.org, is spending $1 million on a “Run Warren Run” effort
and recently sent troops to the first-caucus state of Iowa. A second team,
Democracy for America, has bolted from its pro-Clinton founder and is using
$250,000 on a similar pro-Warren effort.

Clinton still appears likely to clinch a nomination, particularly if Warren
keeps her pledge not to run. But the difficulties of 2014 are casting her
race in a different light, raising questions about liberal dissatisfaction
with her record and whether a leftward shift would hurt her in a general
election.

“There are a lot of unchecked boxes with Hillary Clinton when it comes to
economic populism and corporate accountability,” said Adam Green, cofounder
of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal group. “There are
definitely red flags.”

He cited pricey speaking fees that Clinton received at two events for
Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street investment bank, and questions about her
position on numerous policies that affect the middle class, such as a
long-shot hope to expand Social Security benefits.

The group, while not part of the draft effort, has sent an organizer to New
Hampshire in hopes of creating a coalition that ensures that candidates
carry Warren’s message.

At the very least, these liberal groups hope to use her momentum to push
Clinton in a direction more aligned with a populist agenda.

“We absolutely would welcome Secretary Clinton laying out an energizing and
bold agenda on the issues MoveOn members care about and Senator Warren
cares about,” said Ben Wikler, Washington director of MoveOn.org.

In a sign of increased agitation with the Warren dynamic, a Clinton adviser
recently met with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said cofounder
Green, confirming a report first aired by MSNBC. He declined to provide
details.

Democracy for America helps showcase the divide among activists. While the
liberal group is pushing for Warren, founder Howard Dean favors Clinton.

“I am convinced if you put the facts in front of Hillary Clinton, she would
see the facts, she would understand the issue, and she would do the right
thing,” said Dean, a former Vermont governor and past chairman of the
Democratic National Committee.

Many Democrats still flock to Clinton. More than 80 percent said they would
support her in a presidential bid, according to a recent NBC News/Wall
Street Journal poll. But 71 percent of all voters surveyed said they want
the next president to take a different approach to the White House.

Warren’s recent successes have propelled her popularity among liberals. She
nearly derailed a big spending bill over a provision that she said would
water down financial regulations. She has also taken on the White House by
opposing Obama’s nominee for a Treasury undersecretary, Antonio Weiss,
largely due to his Wall Street ties.

Supporters shrug at Warren’s insistence that she is not running in 2016 and
note that she puts her dismissals in present tense. She has pledged to
complete her term, which ends in January 2019. Clinton has signaled she
will run but has not given a final decision.

Clinton has stayed silent on Warren’s latest maneuvers. But supporters are
setting her up as a liberal figure in her own right.

“There’s such an impressive record in Hillary’s life and across the span of
her career supporting and promoting opportunities for middle-class
families, for women, and children,” said Tracy Sefl, a senior adviser for
Ready for Hillary, a political action committee that is not affiliated with
Clinton but has raised more than $12 million to encourage a presidential
bid.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said the two women have long fought
for the same ideals.

Asked about the impact of Warren’s rise on a potential Clinton bid, he said
via e-mail, “We need more people like Elizabeth Warren and those she
inspires fighting for them.”

Clinton channeled the Massachusetts senator in October, when she spoke at a
Boston event aimed at saving Martha Coakley’s faltering Massachusetts
gubernatorial campaign.

“Don’t let anyone tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses
that create jobs,” she said, echoing a theme often sounded by Warren.
Republicans denounced her remarks as liberal pandering, and she backed away
from them days later saying she had “shorthanded” her comments.

But some of the enthusiasm Clinton generated when she first ran for
president in 2008 has waned.

A speech she gave at Georgetown University this month filled a little more
than half the auditorium.

Her autobiography, a 656-page tome titled “Hard Choices,” has yet to sell
enough copies to meet a reported $14 million advance.

And people still wince at Clinton’s comment last June that she and her
husband left the White House “dead broke.”

Some supporters fear this erosion of Clinton’s image, especially when
encouraged by members of her own party, will hurt Democratic chances of
winning the White House.

“My concern is anytime you leave your base, you run the risk of Republicans
pursuing,” said Lou D’Allesandro, a longtime New Hampshire state senator
and Clinton ally. “But if [Clinton] decides to run, it will be tough to
unlodge her.”

The pair aren’t exactly chummy.

Warren called out Clinton in her book, “The Two-Income Trap,” for approving
bankruptcy legislation as a New York senator that Warren believed would
harm working families.

But Warren has said she backs a Clinton run. And Clinton has sought to make
friends. “I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get
it,” she said at the Coakley event.

Liberals are banking on the Warren focus to pay off even if she doesn’t run.

Clinton “isn’t a turn-off as much as an insurance policy,” said Mary Anne
Marsh, a Democratic political analyst in Boston. “This is much more about
getting Hillary Clinton to embrace these conditions than watching Elizabeth
Warren on a campaign for the White House.”

*Politicker NJ: “Rutgers 2016 Poll of NJ voters: Clinton 49%, Christie 39%”
<http://politickernj.com/2014/12/rutgers-2016-poll-of-nj-voters-clinton-49-christie-39/>*

By Max Pizarro

December 22, 2014, 12:53 p.m. EST

In a 2016 mano-a-mano between Gov. Chris Christie and former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, New Jersey voters continue to give Clinton a
double-digit lead, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.

Forty-nine percent of registered voters say they would support Clinton over
Christie, while 39 percent back Christie. The gap between the two has
remained around 10 points through much of the past year, according to
polling director David Redlawsk.

Clinton is also more positively received by New Jersey voters, with a 56
percent favorability rating, compared to Christie’s 44 percent. While
Clinton’s favorability rating is down from 65 percent at the beginning of
2014, Christie’s dropped even more after January’s Bridgegate revelations.
Both ratings, however, have remained relatively stable since their declines
early in the year.

“It probably makes sense that there is little movement in a hypothetical
matchup two years before the actual election,” said Redlawsk, director of
the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling and professor of political
science at Rutgers University. “Still, Christie starts down double-digits
in his home state if both he and Clinton are the nominees.”

Sixty-three percent of New Jersey voters expect Christie to hit the 2016
campaign trail, up six points since last asked in an August
Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Voters also think Christie’s decision-making ahead
of a potential presidential campaign has not been New Jersey-focused.
Instead, 55 percent says the governor’s choices in signing or vetoing bills
have been more about a potential presidential run, rather than what’s good
for the state. In addition, 41 percent think Christie’s travel schedule
outside of the state for fundraising and campaigning has hurt his ability
to govern. But 52 percent say his travels have made no difference to his
ability to govern.

At this point, about seven in ten Republicans and Democrats name a
preference for their party’s nomination, little changed throughout 2014.
Republicans and those leaning GOP continue to stick by Christie as their
top choice, while Democrats (along with leaners) overwhelmingly still
prefer Clinton.

Christie is number 1 for 32 percent of Garden State Republicans and GOP
leaners, down nine points since August. Another nine percent name Christie
as their second choice. Former 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney follows with 10
percent naming him as first choice and eight percent listing him second.

In contrast, 54 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democrat choose
Clinton as their candidate, down five points from August. For another eight
percent, she is the second choice. No other Democrat breaks 10 percent in
first choice mentions; Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) follows as first choice
for six percent and second choice for five percent.

Results are from a statewide poll of 750 adults, contacted by live callers
on both landlines and cell phones from Dec. 3-10, 2014. The subsample of
646 registered voters reported on here has a margin of error of +/-4.3
percentage points.

*Time: “Hillary Clinton, Up, Up and Away”
<http://time.com/3643813/hillary-clinton-promises-upward-mobility/>*

By Haley Sweetland Edwards

December 22, 2014, 9:45 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton prepares a 2016 campaign on promises of upward
mobility for the middle class

It wasn’t until this fall that Hillary Clinton began to show her hand. Her
book tour was winding down, the midterm elections were gearing up, and her
paid speaking events, for which she charged up to $300,000 a pop, had
passed from initial curiosity into the realm of postmodern performance
art–spectacles, like Andy Warhol prints, remarked on mainly for their cost.

But as she embarked on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates,
speaking gratis to voters, she dropped the milquetoast observations about
American foreign policy and focused instead on a single, overarching
message: the economic frustration of the American middle class.

“Working people haven’t gotten a raise in a decade, and it feels harder and
harder to get ahead,” she said in Pennsylvania, in what had become a
typical stump speech. From California to Massachusetts, she told voters to
choose politicians who were “on your side,” to demand a “fair shot” and a
“fresh start,” to make their vote about “upward mobility.” By the time she
got to New York, she was practically preaching. “If you work hard and do
your part, you and your family are supposed to be able to have a better
life,” she roared.

If that rhetoric sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Barack Obama made
“on your side” and “fair shot” the two dominant clichés of the 2012
election. They, in turn, owed a lot to Clinton’s husband, the 42nd
President, who made the “working hard and playing by the rules” trope a
huge crowd pleaser in the 1990s. Indeed, the most remarkable part of
Clinton’s new message was that it wasn’t new at all. The most talked-about
presidential candidate who is not yet a candidate had simply seized at last
upon the issue that has dominated every election in the past generation–and
campaign professionals across the country took note.

It is, after all, good politics. Despite the recent growth of the economy,
the drop in oil prices and some qualified optimism about wages, the vast
majority of Americans have yet to feel so much as a gentle breeze of
economic recovery. The median American income this year was about 6% lower
than it was in 2000, if adjusted for inflation, and two-thirds of Americans
are now living on paychecks that are 15% to 35% smaller than they were in
2002, according to Robert Shapiro, a former economic adviser to President
Bill Clinton and co-founder of Sonecon, an economic advisory and analysis
firm. “Most people are getting poorer every year,” says Shapiro. “There’s
nothing like this on record. It explains our current politics in a way that
no other data explain it.”

But if delivering a couple dozen speeches about the broken economy isn’t
political rocket science, figuring out a way to convince voters that you’re
the one to fix it just might be. Clinton, who is expected to announce her
candidacy in early 2015, has her work cut out for her. If she’s going to
run on a message of economic prosperity for the middle class, she will need
a persuasive policy agenda and a rock-solid political strategy to convince
voters that she is, or could be, the new hero of the middle class.

American voters have been promised the moon before, and 2016 will be no
different. In the next few months, all the Republican presidential hopefuls
will present their lists of policy fixes, including old standbys like more
domestic energy, less regulation and lower taxes. Obama, for his part, will
continue to push his agenda, including a higher minimum wage and an
expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, a tax refund designed to reward working
families.

Clinton, who will want to differentiate herself from Obama, will probably
lift a handful of policies from the tried-and-true Democratic handbook,
like funding more infrastructure projects, while loudly championing a few
particularly innovative ideas of her own. William Galston, a fellow at the
Brookings Institution and a former domestic-policy adviser to Clinton’s
husband, suggests, for example, creating an online public university–the
National Online University, he calls it–where anyone could get a degree, in
their own time, for free. Others propose federally backed
computer-manufacturing apprenticeships, free IT classes and streamlined
regulations to make it easier to start small businesses. But while some
voters are moved by policy ideas, Clinton’s success in both the primaries
and a general election will hinge on whether she is able to give a good
sermon about something more important: hope.

Cue hometown boy Bill Clinton. In mid-November, he offered a 2016 campaign
preview of his own in a speech at his presidential library in Little Rock,
Ark. “When I took office, the distribution of American prosperity looked
astonishingly like it does now,” he told a group of supporters. But by the
end of the decade, “we had three surpluses and the fourth surplus we
submitted to Congress when I left.” The Clinton Administration, he said,
created 50% more jobs than Reagan’s, moved 100 times as many people up from
poverty and increased the incomes of the bottom 20% of Americans by 23.6%.
“This shows the importance of policy,” he said. Then he added pointedly,
“We can do this again.” The subtext was clear to everyone present: all we
need to return to past glory is a bit of that Clinton touch.

That is, of course, a story line that rankles Clinton’s rivals, both on the
Republican side and among the contingent of liberal Democrats who would
prefer to see a populist candidate like Elizabeth Warren snag the
nomination. Both groups take issue with the narrative. The boom in the
’90s, they believe, was not the result of presidential policy so much as
good timing: the birth of the commercial Internet drove productivity and
wages higher at a time when the U.S.’s slowly declining manufacturing
sector had yet to hit rock bottom. But from there, the two sides’
strategies diverge.

Republicans point out that voters’ memories of the Clinton Administration
are hardly all roses. “It’s amusing that the Clinton allies rely heavily on
spinning any positives they can from the 1990s while avoiding the baggage
that her campaign will carry from their past scandals,” said Tim Miller,
who runs the conservative PAC America Rising.

Liberal Democrats are already busy discrediting the idea that Clinton, who
is more closely associated with Wall Street than factory floors, should be
cast as a warrior for the little guy at all. They point out that in their
quarter-century in the public spotlight, the Clintons have raised more than
a billion dollars from corporations and business elites, and that nearly
all the biggest financial firms have already, albeit tacitly, pledged
Clinton their support. Forty-four percent of all voters in Iowa thought
Clinton’s “close ties to Wall Street” were a disadvantage, according to an
October poll.

Clinton and her close circle are not oblivious to the problem. Aides
patiently explain that Clinton donates her famously large speaking fees to
her family’s foundation and that the differences between her views and
those of the populist wing of the party “are more rhetorical than actual.”
But the debate foreshadows the fight to come–when Clinton hopes to reclaim
the spirit of the struggling middle class and that same group of voters
goes shopping for a candidate who can actually make a difference.

*CNN: “These 2016 long-shots think they can win?”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politics/2016-politics-long-shots/>*

By Stephen Collinson

December 22, 2014, 9:31 a.m. EST

No one knows your name so here's an idea: why not run for President?

Politicians who would draw blank stares from most Americans are toying --
sometimes openly -- with the idea of a run, gunning for a chance to take on
the biggest names in politics and to defy the odds and end up in the White
House.

On the Republican side, this crew of long-shots includes former New York
Gov. George Pataki, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, 2012 candidate Rick
Santorum and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb,
outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
could vie for the Democratic nomination.

None of these potential 2016ers register more than single digits in most
polls and they'd face seemingly insurmountable odds against politicians who
are so well known that they essentially double as national celebrities.
Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite for Democrats, though she
continues to eye Elizabeth Warren -- a huge political brand in her own
right. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Chris
Christie could bring so much star power to a GOP primary fight that
lesser-known candidates might struggle to get a word in.

So why would largely unknown candidates endure the endless stump speeches,
germ-laden hand shakes, pleas to donors, soggy pizza, late night flights
and crack-of-dawn TV hits that come with running for President?

"It's ego," said David Johnson, a Georgia political consultant who runs a
Republican-leaning firm. "It's a way to build their brand identity. They
get a platform during the debates, they are able to advocate their
positions."

Every presidential campaign is by definition a long-shot — after all, only
one candidate can win. A victorious White House bid is a mystical blend of
tactics and timing, luck and charisma and the ability to ride out a crisis.

But not everyone who loses is a loser. A presidential bid is also a pretty
good line on a resume -- even if it doesn't lead to the Oval Office.

"For some of these candidates, it's pretty obvious that they are thinking
long term about their careers — and thinking about building a brand for
themselves that they can parlay into a political talk show," said Oberlin
College Professor Michael Parkin, author of an academic paper on how
political candidates use late night television.

Mike Huckabee's folksy charm won over voters at the Iowa caucus in 2008 and
he ended up with a radio show. He is still strong among evangelicals and
could jump into the 2016 race if he sees an opening.

A losing race can still turn a politician into a bigger player in their
party, fatten lecture fees or lead to new jobs in government.

Howard Dean, for instance, turned his infamous flame out during the 2004
Democratic primary into a job as chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, which helped him influence the party's direction long after his
loss.

Another Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, was one of a crowd of 435 in the House
of Representatives. But in presidential runs mostly remembered for his
claim he saw a UFO and arm twirling antics to show he had no corporate
"strings," Kucinich won national attention for his brand of liberal
politics.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich introduced himself to a new generation of
American conservatives with his 2012 presidential run. He's now a sought
after pundit, including on CNN, and an author.

The power of presidential campaigns to make someone's name is already
playing out in 2016. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson polled second in an early CNN
snapshot of the Republican race this month, despite being barely known
outside of conservative circles.

"If you run for the American presidency and don't make it, but run a
credible effort, you have enhanced your stature on the national stage,"
said David Yepsen, a connoisseur of political long-shots after 34 years
with the Des Moines Register. "Politics is a game run by risk takers and
most of them fail. But enough of them succeed. You wind up in a better
place."

In 2007, Jim Gilmore, a former Virginia governor and Republican Party
chief, figured he was qualified to be president and was a big enough name
to have a chance. He had a set of economic and foreign policy issues he
cared about, so he launched a campaign.

He sparred with candidates like Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani
in the early debates but quit the race months before the first nominating
contests when he failed to catch fire. He has no regrets.

"For me, it still remains a positive experience. I was happy that I ran,"
said Gilmore, who used his campaign to pivot into a Senate race, which he
lost. "It's important to offer the right kinds of thinking of policy and
programs for the people of the United States — that's what comes through in
a presidential campaign."

Gilmore now runs American Opportunity, a conservative policy organization.

Candidates set out for the White House hoping that lightning might strike.
After all, it has before.

No one thought Jimmy Carter had a shot in 1976. But he spent months going
door-to-door in Iowa and built a campaign that took him to the presidency.
Few pundits gave Barack Obama, the self styled "skinny kid with a funny
name," a chance of downing the Clinton machine in 2008. But he's now the
44th president.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush was riding high in the polls after
winning the Gulf War and the Democratic nomination didn't seem worth a
dime. But a talented governor from Arkansas, seen as a long-shot because of
his truckload of personal baggage, jumped into the race when other big name
Democrats passed. Soon, he was President Bill Clinton.

A long-odds White House bid is also a chance for a politician to make
themselves competitive for the vice presidency.

Joe Biden didn't even win 1% in the Iowa caucuses in 2008, but Obama saw
enough of his foreign policy expertise to pick him as his vice president.

Fiorina, who lost a California Senate race in 2010, is touring early voting
states to talk about women's issues and may be trying to put her name into
the vice presidential chatter this time around, Johnson said.

Long-shot candidates also see a White House campaign as a way to highlight
a favorite agenda. John Bolton would need an earthquake to win the
nomination but the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is contemplating a
presidential campaign to thrust his brand of hawkish foreign policy to the
center of the Republican race.

Webb might play a similar role for Democrats with his strong anti-war views.

Long-shot candidates also sometimes see a White House race as a way of
brokering their influence over a particular set of supporters. Rev. Jesse
Jackson used presidential runs in the 1980s to win recognition as a leader
of the African-American voting bloc, which is crucial for Democrats.

A presidential run can also serve as a vehicle for politicians, like
O'Malley, who have higher ambitions but no obvious openings.

Some also-rans do enough to put themselves in the frame for Cabinet posts:
former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack ran briefly against Obama in the 2008
campaign and is now Agriculture Secretary.

Other candidates begin as long shots and become competitive over multiple
campaigns. Ronald Reagan for instance ran for president twice before he won
in 1980. Romney used his 2008 campaign to position himself for the
nomination four years later.

If they don't get many votes, long-shot candidates can still damage the
frontrunners.

Former Sen. Chris Dodd punctured Clinton's 2008 campaign aura of
inevitability for the first time over her debate answer on driving licenses
for illegal immigrants.

And some find out that running for president isn't as much fun as it looks.

Quirky 2008 Democratic candidate Mike Gravel couldn't get a word in as
Clinton, Obama and Biden sparred in the 2008 debates and complained he was
treated like a "potted plant."