Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday December 26, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:45:28 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday December 26, 2014 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Washington Post: Hillary Clinton looks to shore up support on the left
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-looks-more-and-more-like-a-candidate-though-its-not-official/2014/12/25/ffbf8d76-87a6-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>*

"'What would Robert Kennedy say about the fact that still, today, more than
16 million children live in poverty in the richest nation on Earth?'
Clinton asked. 'What would he say about the fact that such a large portion
of economic gains have gone to such a small portion of our population,' she
continued, also asking about the persistent wealth gap among blacks and
Hispanics and the unequal treatment of black men in the criminal justice
system."

*Associated Press: “Sanders: I’ll Decide On Presidential Run By March”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SANDERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-26-03-26-57>*

“Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders says he'll decide by March whether
to launch a 2016 presidential campaign and, if so, whether he'll seek the
Democratic nomination.”

*Washington Post: Dan Balz: “Democrats see rising populist sentiment. But
can it shake Hillary Clinton?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-see-rising-populist-sentiment-but-can-it-shake-hillary-clinton/2014/12/22/a07434c4-8801-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>*

“Absent some sign from Warren that she is going to run, can these Democrats
successfully pressure Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party’s dominant
prospective presidential candidate, to adopt much of their agenda?”

*Des Moines Register: Opinion: Clinton and Warren: Facts, not Labels
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/12/26/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-facts-labels/20904077/>*

"The fact is, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and most Democrats are more
united on the basic issues than I can recall in a long time. They have all
focused on the plight of the squeezed middle class and working families
stuck in wage stagnation, their children burdened by substantial student
loan debts while the income disparity between the super wealthy and the
rest of America grows every year with no end in sight."

*Associated Press: “Are Americans comfortable with political dynasties?”
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/americans-comfortable-political-dynasties/>*

“The possibility of a Bush-Clinton matchup in 2016 is increasingly
plausible.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “A brief overview of the next six
months in (potential) presidential announcements”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/26/a-brief-overview-of-the-next-six-months-in-potential-presidential-announcements/>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the most watched potential
2016 candidate but hasn't announced yet if she intends to run. But a shadow
campaign bolstered by close allies and unaffiliated political groups have
already made her the early Democratic front-runner. Her inner circle has
indicated that she will likely not make her announcement until late spring.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Romney tops 2016 GOP candidates in new poll”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/228086-romney-tops-2016-gop-candidates-in-new-poll>*

“Mitt Romney polls two points ahead of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in
Zogby’s latest poll on the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.”

*New York Post: “How Hillary could make ObamaCare worse”
<http://nypost.com/2014/12/25/how-hillary-could-make-obamacare-worse/>*

“Clinton ducks questions about her views on health reform. But the plan she
proposed in 1993, as first lady, raises concerns. “

*Articles:*

*Washington Post: Hillary Clinton looks to shore up support on the left
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-looks-more-and-more-like-a-candidate-though-its-not-official/2014/12/25/ffbf8d76-87a6-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>*

By Anne Gearan
December 25, 2014

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president, is
working hard to shore up support among liberals in hopes of tamping down a
serious challenge from the left in the battle for the 2016 nomination.

Clinton has aligned herself firmly with President Obama since the November
midterms on a range of liberal-friendly issues, including immigration,
climate change and opening diplomatic relations with Cuba. In an
impassioned human rights speech this month, she also condemned the CIA’s
use of harsh interrogation tactics and decried cases of apparent police
brutality against minorities.

The recent statements suggest a concerted effort by Clinton to appeal to
the Democratic Party’s most activist, liberal voters, who have often eyed
her with suspicion and who would be crucial to her securing the party’s
nomination.

But the positions also tie her ever more tightly to a president who remains
broadly unpopular, providing new lines of attack for the many Republicans
jostling to oppose her if she runs.

One Democratic strategist said the moves are “more prophylactic than
anything. If she didn’t say anything, the media and the liberal groups that
care about this stuff” would criticize her or nurse a grudge. Like others,
he spoke on the condition of anonymity because Clinton has not yet said she
is a candidate.

Strategists from both parties also said Clinton is hardly tipping her hand
by remarking on matters that will be part of the coming presidential
campaign.

Clinton has said she is considering a second run for president and would
probably reach her decision after Jan. 1. An announcement looks likely in
the spring.

There are several potential Democratic candidates who could appeal to
portions of the party’s liberal base, including former senator Jim Webb
(Va.), Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.). Many
progressives also are urging a bid by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.),
whose populist anti-Wall Street message draws large crowds.

In the meantime, Clinton has been quietly meeting with potential campaign
advisers and consulting a variety of people, from business leaders to
sitting Democratic political figures, about issues she might address in a
campaign.

She also has been making a point of addressing topical matters at speaking
events and other appearances. The former secretary of state’s office has
released statements in her name in support of Obama’s announcement of
executive action on immigration and on the planned normalization of
relations with Cuba.

Her appeals to liberals were on clear display last week at a gala award
ceremony in New York named for Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in
1968 during his idealistic run for the White House.

Clinton said she is proud to have been part of an administration that ended
extrajudicial transfers and abusive treatment of terrorism detainees. The
practices were the subject of an exhaustive Senate report this month that
concluded that the CIA had engaged in torture and that the methods were
ineffective in gaining useful intelligence.

The well-dressed crowd in a Manhattan hotel ballroom on Dec. 16 applauded
loudly at that statement and thrilled to her broader theme of righting
social wrongs.

“What would Robert Kennedy say about the fact that still, today, more than
16 million children live in poverty in the richest nation on Earth?”
Clinton asked.

“What would he say about the fact that such a large portion of economic
gains have gone to such a small portion of our population,” she continued,
also asking about the persistent wealth gap among blacks and Hispanics and
the unequal treatment of black men in the criminal justice system.

“What would Robert Kennedy say to the thousands of Americans marching in
our streets demanding justice for all? To the young people with their eyes
open and their hands up?”

The remarks were more in keeping with Clinton’s early career as a lawyer
and human rights champion than her later work as a politically moderate
senator and failed presidential candidate or as a diplomat. They also
appear designed to address a populist hunger among many Democrats for a
candidate attuned to economic inequality and the concerns of working
people, including many who would prefer a run by Warren.

The next day came word that American Alan Gross had been released from
prison in Cuba and that Obama planned a larger diplomatic opening to the
island nation that looms large in U.S. politics. Clinton issued a statement
that evening welcoming Gross’s release and praising the moves to engage
with Cuba.

“Despite good intentions, our decades-long policy of isolation has only
strengthened the Castro regime’s grip on power,” Clinton said. “As I have
said, the best way to bring change to Cuba is to expose its people to the
values, information and material comforts of the outside world.”

Clinton was secretary of state when Gross was detained in 2009 while
distributing communications equipment to Jewish groups in Cuba under a
contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development. Gross had been
convicted in 2011 of crimes against the Cuban state and sentenced to 15
years.

Clinton wrote in her memoir “Hard Choices” that not getting Gross out was
one of the regrets of her tenure. She also wrote that she had suggested to
Obama as she left the administration in 2013 that the time might be right
for an overture to Cuba.

On the environment, many activists are annoyed by Clinton’s refusal to take
a stand on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which requires approval from
the State Department, which she used to lead. She sidestepped that issue
again at another New York gala this month but gave a strikingly fulsome
endorsement of Obama’s recent actions on climate change.

“You pushed for and rallied behind President Obama’s use of the Clean Air
Act to set the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing
power plants, which are driving the most dangerous effects of climate
change,” Clinton told the League of Conservation Voters. “The unprecedented
action that President Obama has taken must be protected at all cost.”

Keystone may be stuck in environmentalists’ craw now, but the issue is
likely to be resolved before the next president takes office. Clinton
appeared to be signaling how she would address the larger and ongoing issue
of climate change in the 2016 campaign.

“From the administration’s announcement last month of a $3 billion
commitment to the global green-climate fund, to that new joint announcement
with China [on climate change], to new rules under consideration for ozone,
we continue to push forward,” she said. “But that is just the beginning of
what is needed.”

Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters, said
Clinton’s remarks “continue to build on her record on energy and climate
issues” at a time when the forthcoming Republican Congress is expected to
try to short-circuit Obama’s actions.

In early December, during a Boston speech to a women’s group, Clinton took
time to address the deaths of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Mo., and
Staten Island, saying that many Americans think that the nation’s justice
system is off-kilter. She said she supports Obama’s decision to create a
new task force on policing and community relations. (She has not weighed in
publicly on the killing of two New York police officers, who were slain in
apparent revenge for the Staten Island death.)

On immigration, Clinton issued a lengthy statement last month supporting
Obama’s controversial decision to shield millions of illegal immigrants
from deportation — and blamed congressional Republicans for failing to move
ahead on comprehensive reform.

“We should never forget that we’re not discussing abstract statistics —
we’re talking about real families with real experiences,” she said in the
statement. “We’re talking about parents lying awake at night afraid of a
knock on the door that could tear their families apart, people who love
this country, work hard, and want nothing more than a chance to contribute
to the community and build better lives for themselves and their children.”

One benefit to highlighting areas of agreement with Obama now is that it
will give Clinton the ability to distance herself from him on other issues
later. She will have “a whole campaign” to make those distinctions, a
senior Democrat said.

As Clinton’s every move is scrutinized, it may be too easy to see only
political motives in her public statements or to analyze them only as they
relate to Obama, some observers said.

“She’s a public figure, a former secretary of state, during which time I’m
sure that she had a number of conversations with the president about the
various issues” she is commenting on, said Nancy J. Hirschmann, a political
science professor and director of the University of Pennsylvania’s gender,
sexuality and women’s studies program.

“She has a clear vision of who she is, so it’s perfectly reasonable for her
to express truthfully what her own views are.”

*Associated Press: “Sanders: I’ll Decide On Presidential Run By March”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SANDERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-26-03-26-57>*

By Dave Gram

December 26, 2014, 11:04 a.m. EST

BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) -- Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders says he'll
decide by March whether to launch a 2016 presidential campaign and, if so,
whether he'll seek the Democratic nomination. Either way, Sanders says he
wouldn't run just to nudge the debate to the left.

"I don't want to do it unless I can do it well," he told The Associated
Press. "I don't want to do it unless we can win this thing."

Sanders, a socialist, said he grew up "solidly lower middle class" in a
Jewish family in Brooklyn - his father, an immigrant from Poland, sold
paint for a living -and his views about the distribution of wealth were
formed early.

"A lack of money in my family was a very significant aspect of my growing
up ... kids in my class would have new jackets, new coats, and I would get
hand-me-downs," Sanders said.

After his graduation from the University of Chicago, Sanders came to
Vermont in the 1960s as part of the counterculture, back-to-the-land
movement that turned the state from solid Yankee Republican into one of the
bluest in the country.

He won his first election - for Burlington mayor - by 10 votes, and since
then has carried a consistent message thought eight terms in the House and
now his second term in the Senate: The rich have too much, the poor and
working class not enough.

Sanders said the issues about which he's been railing all these years are
only becoming more dire. The wealth gap has grown, and the middle class, he
says, is "collapsing."

"You have one family, the Walton family of Walmart, owning more wealth than
the bottom 40 percent of the American people," he said. "We have 95 percent
of all new income going to the top 1 percent. You have millions of families
unable to afford to send their kids to college. People are desperately
worried about whether or not they are going to retire with dignity."

Sanders has a 12-step plan that he says will restore the economy and
especially the middle class, most of it dependent on higher taxes on the
rich and corporations. Among the proposals: A $1 trillion infrastructure
building program that would "create 13 million decent-paying jobs," more
worker-friendly international trade deals and legislation to strengthen
unions, and transforming the U.S. energy system "away from fossil fuels and
into energy efficiency and sustainable energy."

He says he'll make a "gut decision" about running for the presidency - and,
perhaps, challenging Democratic favorite Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He would be 75 in 2016, but "my health is good," he said, knocking on a
wooden conference room table. He said he couldn't remember the last time
he'd called in sick to work.

Sanders said he is weighing whether to run as an independent, as he has
done in Vermont, or as a Democrat. He has been critical of both major
parties over the years, though he has aligned with liberal Democrats on
many issues.

Tad Devine, a longtime consultant to Democratic presidential candidates,
agreed that 2016 might present an opening to Sanders, a year in which his
message could resonate. Fewer people feel they can afford the American
dream of sending kids to college and looking forward to a secure
retirement, Devine said.

"Even the majority of Republicans believe that the deck is stacked against
the people in this country," Devine said. "That's exactly what Bernie has
been talking about for a long time." Devine, who previously worked for
Sanders, said he plans to work for the Vermont senator if he enters the
race.

Devine said Sanders also could run on a solid legislative record in a
Congress that hasn't been known for getting much done recently. As chairman
of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Sanders this year got passed a
$16.3 billion package designed to address problems in the troubled VA
health system. His liberal-left record includes voting against the Defense
of Marriage Act in 1996 and the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act in 2001,
both while he was in the House.

Clinton would pose a key challenge for Sanders.

"I think the question is, is he a step too far for the mainstream of the
Democratic Party? He is a socialist," said Kathy Sullivan, a member of the
Democratic National Committee and a Clinton supporter. "I don't think
you'll find the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is that big,
contrary to what Republicans might think."

Peter Burling, a former New Hampshire state senator, longtime Democratic
Party leader and a Clinton supporter, said Sanders might have an advantage
over her in the amount of passion he can deliver.

"I don't think she demonstrated it in the race against (Barack) Obama in
2008," Burling said. Sanders would contrast with Clinton because "he can
speak with unfettered passion," Burling said.

*Washington Post: Dan Balz: “Democrats see rising populist sentiment. But
can it shake Hillary Clinton?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-see-rising-populist-sentiment-but-can-it-shake-hillary-clinton/2014/12/22/a07434c4-8801-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>*

By Dan Balz

December 24, 2014

Last week, in a coffeehouse in downtown Des Moines, a group of progressive
activists launched an effort that they hope will change the 2016
presidential campaign and in the process upend the Democratic Party.

The gathering in Iowa, organized by MoveOn.org and backed by Democracy for
America, was the opening of a grass-roots push to draft Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president. Its broader effect was to escalate
the debate among Democrats about the party’s values, its message, its real
constituencies and, most of all, how it can win elections in the post-Obama
era.

That there is such a debate over the direction of the Democratic Party is
without question, and the differences have become louder in the wake of the
drubbing the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections.

What is in question is the degree to which the rising populist movement on
the left can materially shape the party’s future. More specifically, absent
some sign from Warren that she is going to run, can these Democrats
successfully pressure Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party’s dominant
prospective presidential candidate, to adopt much of their agenda?

To those who argue that the ideological splits within the party are
overstated or mostly stylistic, the effort to draft Warren is a misguided
enterprise. “There really isn’t a huge division in the party,” said former
Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (D). “. . . I don’t think it’s anything
like the tea party and the Republicans.”

Rendell, who two years ago criticized President Obama’s campaign for
attacking Mitt Romney over his business record at Bain Capital, said he
believes most Democrats share Warren’s opposition to a provision favorable
to Wall Street in the recently passed spending bill, which she blasted on
the Senate floor.

Those trying to encourage Warren to run in 2016 argue a different case.
Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.Org Civic Action, said there are
important policy differences that need to be aired before Democrats pick
their 2016 nominee.

She cited issues such as how the party should address income inequality,
who holds positions of power in the executive branch — a cause taken up by
Warren when she opposed Obama’s nomination of investment banker Antonio
Weiss as treasury undersecretary — and whether it is even possible for
Democrats to have a discussion about expanding, rather than constraining,
Social Security benefits. “We are not debating style here,” she said. “We
are debating substance.”

The power of populism

Populist energy pulsates within the party to the point that Democrats
cannot agree on whether it has become its dominant ideological strain. Sen.
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who has championed a populist message as much as
Warren, said: “It’s a good, strong message, and it’s a message that she’s
carried very well, and it’s a message that a number of us have put out
there for a number of years, and it’s catching on. . . . I don’t think it’s
there yet.”

But Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, who comes out of the centrist Democratic
tradition, said he believes the party has tipped in favor of Warren’s
anti-Wall Street, populist message. “I don’t think there’s any question,”
he said of a shift that he finds worrisome for the party’s future hopes of
winning over independents and swing voters.

Jim Dean, who heads Democracy for America, said that until recently, the
party had “regressed” on the relationship between business and government.
“With the ascendance of Elizabeth Warren and the way she has built power
for herself, we are seeing a lot of movement for the party to get back to
its core values,” he said.

Warren has given no indication that she will become a candidate in 2016.
Her advocates on the left take hope from the present-tense language she has
used to disavow her interest — “I am not running for president,” she
repeatedly told NPR’s Steve Inskeep last week — as a sign that her posture
is not irreversible.

Officials at MoveOn.Org, which counts 8 million members, have said they
will commit $1 million to the effort to draft Warren and will set up
operations in states with early caucuses or primaries to stoke interest.
Democracy for America will chip in $250,000. The groups will focus on
organizing in other early-voting states and plan a national day of action
in early February, about one year before the 2016 Iowa caucuses.

“The only way it will really happen is if there’s a massive grass-roots
campaign that shows tremendous support for Elizabeth Warren across the
country,” said Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America.

A Democratic leader from a battleground state, speaking on the condition of
anonymity to offer a candid assessment, said he had strong doubts that the
movement can reshape the 2016 campaign message. He sees no one with the
political heft or following, short of a Warren candidacy, who could pose
enough of a threat to Clinton to change what she otherwise would do and say.

Rendell was more dismissive of the movement’s potential strength, largely
because of what he sees as the lack of differences within the party. “First
of all, there has to be a leader of a movement, and there isn’t a good
leader,” he said, adding, “If Hillary Clinton ran against Jim Webb or
Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, they’d get 5 to 6 percent of the vote”
in Pennsylvania.

However, Tad Devine, a strategist who played key roles in several past
Democratic presidential campaigns, sees far greater potential for a
populist uprising to galvanize the political dialogue. Arguing that the
sense of economic discontent is widespread and that the hunger for a
sharper populist agenda is genuine, he said, “If somebody gets up and
delivers it with credibility, it’s going to resonate very powerfully in a
way that’s not indicative of the party divisions today.”

Other Democrats agree that Democratic and Republican candidates alike will
be looking to seize the issue of middle-class economic insecurity and that
a presidential nominee dare not lose that debate. “The party that figures
out the economic message around making prosperity more inclusive for all
Americans is going to win this election,” said Bill Burton, a former Obama
White House official and current Democratic strategist. “I really do think
Republicans will be as attentive to that as Democrats are.”

Clinton competition?

What rankles many progressives is the possible absence of a genuinely
contested battle for the Democratic nomination. If Warren stays out, it is
not clear who would have the combination of message and political strength
to make the race competitive.

At this point, the field is far from fixed. Sanders, the independent
senator from Vermont, has a worldview that excites some progressives, and
he has visited states with early contests as he deliberates whether to run.
Webb, a former senator from Virginia, has formed an exploratory committee
and has put economic fairness on the table as an issue, but he acknowledges
the long-shot nature of his possible candidacy. Maryland’s outgoing
governor, Martin O’Malley, has ties to both the centrist and progressive
wings of the party and traveled the country this year in preparation for a
possible campaign.

Devine, an adviser to Sanders, said bluntly that anyone hoping to advance
the populist agenda in a possible run against Clinton has to be prepared to
wage a serious campaign with all that entails. Half-hearted bus trips
through Iowa and New Hampshire are not enough, he said.

“If you want this message to take hold with people, you have to challenge
the front-runner in the nominating process in a real way, not a symbolic
way, the way Gary Hart did with Walter Mondale” in the 1984 Democratic
race, he said.

At this point, no potential candidate appears ready to challenge Clinton in
quite that way. Even many of those urging Warren to run tip-toe around
sharp criticism of Clinton or what she stands for.

“Our members have deep respect for Hillary Clinton,” Galland said. “The
point here is to elevate the exciting message, the powerful track record,
the inspiring vision of Elizabeth Warren. That’s our focus, not on
anti-Hillary or anti-Bernie.”

Dean, of Democracy for America, said the same thing about his
organization’s involvement in the draft-Warren movement. Notably, Howard
Dean — whose 2004 campaign became the rallying point for the progressive
grass roots and lives on today as DFA — recently announced his support for
Clinton.

Bill Carrick, a California-based Democratic strategist, explained one of
the reasons. Pent-up desire for a populist economic message is strong, he
said, but many older progressives are conflicted because of their
affections for Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

“Generationally there’s a bunch of people who are very progressive, who
essentially are in the baby-boomer world, who are very, very comfortable
with Hillary,” he said. “Some of it is they consider the Clinton years
successful, politically and economically. Some of it is she’s going to make
history and be the first woman president.”

Asked about concerns among some progressives that Clinton will not have the
kind of strong message they want, Ohio’s Brown said: “I don’t particularly
share those concerns. I think Hillary’s got a good sensibility for
working-class voters.” Later in the interview, however, he said of Clinton,
“She’s going to have to show more independence from Wall Street.”

Populist sentiment causes Delaware’s Markell to worry that the party will
appeal too narrowly in 2016. He argues that what Democrats need are a
growth-oriented message and policies to go with it. “Economic fairness and
inequity are important,” he said. “And increasing the minimum wage is
important. We’ve done it in Delaware.” But he warned against getting
“caught up in the rhetoric of fairness for the sake of fairness.”

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper survived a serious challenge in his
reelection bid last month in a crucial swing state. The business-friendly
Democrat sees Warren’s populism as “only part of the message” the party
needs to adopt. Creating jobs, curtailing excessive regulation of small
business and other strategies need to be part of it as well, he said.

“It’s not populist in the sense that we’ve got a slogan and we go out there
and shout it to the beat of a drum,” he said. “But I think it’s part of the
equation of this frustration of working people that the system is skewed
against them.”

Clinton became a more populist candidate in 2008 after losing a string of
contests to Obama and demonstrated her appeal to white, working-class
voters. In preparation for a possible 2016 campaign, she has already
invoked income inequality as a problem that must be addressed. But her
rhetoric, except for what she later said was a mangled comment attacking
businesses, does not have the edginess of Warren’s.

How strong that message will be if she faces only limited competition for
the nomination is what worries liberal activists — which is why they are
hoping to entice Warren to run or help elevate her standing even higher.
How much strength there is in the progressive movement, and how Clinton
weighs its significance, will not be known until she makes her expected
announcement of candidacy.

*Des Moines Register: Opinion: Clinton and Warren: Facts, not Labels
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/12/26/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-facts-labels/20904077/>*

By Lanny J. Davis
December 25, 2014

I read about the recent meetings in Iowa, including in Des Moines,
organized by MoveOn.org urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president. I
read of a lot of labels being used about Secretary Clinton. She was even
described as — OMG! — a “centrist.” But then I saw no facts to support
these labels.

As a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president if she runs, I don’t mind
the efforts of some Democrats to urge Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to
change her mind and run for president. I admire Warren, especially her
recent effort to strip the “cromnibus” budget bill of a rollback of
Dodd-Frank. On the other hand, some Republicans have described her as the
“Ted Cruz of the Democratic Party.” Unfair and not good.

The fact is, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and most Democrats are more
united on the basic issues than I can recall in a long time. They have all
focused on the plight of the squeezed middle class and working families
stuck in wage stagnation, their children burdened by substantial student
loan debts while the income disparity between the super wealthy and the
rest of America grows every year with no end in sight.

Unfortunately, many in the media seem bent on creating bogus substantial
differences among them, using empty labels as pejoratives, devoid of facts.
For example, a recent Bloomberg news article recently reported that
pro-Warren Democrats are concerned about Clinton’s “pro-business economic
policies and a roster of Wall Street donors.” But what facts support these
labels?

Like Warren, Clinton supported the creation of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. As a U.S. senator, Clinton opposed extending tax cuts to
those earning over $250,000 a year. She supports Obamacare, increasing the
minimum wage and the president’s strict regulations to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions and the planetary threat of global warming. “Pro business
economic policies?”

Of course, in her two successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate from New
York, and in her 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton accepted donations
from those who work on Wall Street. So did President Obama in 2008 as well
as 2012. But what policies did either support, influenced by such
donations? None are cited — none exist.

On foreign policy, former Secretary of State Clinton supported the moderate
opposition to the brutal Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad — the current policy
of Obama. She supported Obama’s policies backing the use of NATO air power
(including French and British planes as well as U.S.) to assist the popular
revolt against Libya’s military dictator, Moammar Gadhafi. She supports
Obama’s limits on U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that
justify the label of “hawkish” for her and Obama? Really?

Of course, there are differences in style and approach. Like President Bill
Clinton, Hillary Clinton believes in a lean and efficient government as a
partner of the job creation engine of the private sector. And she has
demonstrated over the years an ability to work with Republicans to get
things done. Howard Dean recently endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
He wrote in Politico Magazine:

“Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States
to serve as President. ... [S]he has a record in the Senate of successfully
working with both sides of our very combative political spectrum in order
to accomplish goals that improve the lives of ordinary Americans.”

Warren has repeatedly stated that she is not running for president in 2016.
Perhaps that is because she sees no substantial policy differences that
would motivate her to change her mind if fellow progressive Democrat
Hillary Clinton becomes a candidate. And the senator understands that
Clinton is now in the strongest position to become the nation’s first woman
president, leading every possible Republican presidential candidate in the
polls, as well as on the four personal qualities that Americans most value
in a president.

I have been involved as a campaign worker for a Democratic presidential
candidate in the Iowa caucuses every four years since 1972. I know that
person-to-person conversations and candidate debates on the issues, not on
personalities or name-calling, are what Iowans want and expect during the
caucus process.

If for some reason Warren changes her mind and decides to run, vigorous
competition and debates among fellow progressives on the best ideas to
achieve similar goals will end up strengthening the ultimate Democratic
Party nominee — just as was the case for Barack Obama in 2008.

That is why Democrats must resist the media’s apparently unavoidable
temptation to create excitement and — may I suggest it? — high ratings and
lots of column inches by depicting bogus divisions among Democratic
candidates. Supporters of the various candidates need to stick to the facts
about their favored candidate and avoid empty, inaccurate labels in
describing other Democratic candidates — and insist that the media and the
pundits do the same.

*Associated Press: “Are Americans comfortable with political dynasties?”
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/americans-comfortable-political-dynasties/>*

By Nancy Benac

December 25, 2014

Again? Really?

There are more than 300 million people in America, yet the same two
families keep popping up when it comes to picking a president.

The possibility of a Bush-Clinton matchup in 2016 is increasingly plausible.

After months of hints and speculation, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says
he’s actively exploring a bid for the Republican nomination.

And while Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn’t revealed her intentions, she’s seen
as the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Between them, the two potential rivals have three presidents and a U.S.
senator in the branches of their family trees. And three governors, as well.

Why are these two families so dominant in modern politics?

It turns out that even though Americans profess to reject dynasties, in
politics they’re quite comfortable with familiar names.

And a famous name can bring a candidate instant brand recognition,
important fund-raising connections and a ready network of political
contacts. It may also suggest competence at a time of dysfunction — like
now.

“Power begets power,” says Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan
Nyhan. “Dynasties can self-perpetuate.”

A political pedigree can have its negatives, though. A prominent surname
sometimes carries unsavory associations and the risk of a fatigue factor.

Both sides of that equation were evident after Bush, 61, the son and
brother of a president and the grandson of a senator, made his announcement.

Party activists said the Bush name would help Jeb attract early money,
talent and supporters around the country.

But Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, was hugely unpopular at the end of his
presidency six years ago. And while people seem to think more of him now,
the recent release of a Senate report on Bush-era torture practices was a
ready reminder of past controversies.

Clinton, 67, a former secretary of state, senator and first lady, will face
the same competing dynamics of familiarity vs. fatigue if she enters the
race.

Former President Bill Clinton is enormously popular now, and would be sure
to campaign for his wife as he did in the 2008 race, but there is still
plenty of lingering unwanted baggage from his White House years.

After Bush edged closer to a run last week, the liberal RootsAction group
quickly set up a NoBushesorClintons website and began collecting signatures
on a “declaration of independence” that pledges to “reject future
domination of government by the Bushes and Clintons and by
Bush/Clinton-like policies.”

But Princeton historian Julian Zelizer thinks the comfort element might be
more important to 2016 voters than any same-old, same-old worries.

“Washington’s broken, and voters and campaign donors are looking for people
who seem to know what they’re doing,” he said. “The familiarity of these
names becomes a big benefit and counteracts any sense that, ‘Oh my God, I
can’t believe these are going to be the candidates again.’ ”

Despite some groaning about a possible Bush-Clinton sequel, there’s plenty
of reason to think voters will simply take a breath and size up the primary
election candidates on their merits.

“It’s all about alternatives,” Zelizer says. “If that’s the best choice
available, people will get over it.”

Dynastic politics, in which multiple family members hold elected office,
are more common than people might think in the U.S.

The U.S. has had 44 presidents, and eight of them came from four families
(two each of Adams, Harrison, Roosevelt and Bush).

Nyhan points to a 2010 study published in Legislative Studies Quarterly
that found that over the previous two centuries, nearly 9 percent of
members of Congress were closely related to someone who had served in a
previous Congress. It concluded that such politicians “enjoy ‘brand name
advantages,’ giving them a significant edge over comparable nondynastic
opponents.”

That kind of talk makes Jeff Cohen’s skin crawl.

Cohen, a co-founder of the RootsAction group, said even his non-political
friends frequently complain about the dominance of the Bushes and Clintons.

“It’s a source of frustration and it’s broad,” he says, calling the Bushes
and Clintons “symbols of a corrupt system and a permanent governing class.”

Even Bush’s mother has suggested a third President Bush could be one too
many.

“If we can’t find more than two or three families to run for high office,
that’s silly,” she said earlier this year.

(Mom supposedly has since come around to the idea of another Bush
candidacy.)

Clinton, for her part, may have to worry as much about Obama fatigue as she
does about Clinton fatigue.

“She served in Obama’s Cabinet, she’s been around a long time, and she’s
quite old for a presidential candidate,” says Nyhan. “So the Republicans
have an opportunity to run a turning-the-page campaign against her.”

Of course, if she’s running against a Bush, that’s a harder case for
Republicans to make.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “A brief overview of the next six
months in (potential) presidential announcements”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/26/a-brief-overview-of-the-next-six-months-in-potential-presidential-announcements/>*

By Jose A. DelReal

December 26, 2014, 10:00 a.m. EST

The new year is still to come, but for political pundits, operatives, and
reporters, 2015 is already all about one thing: 2016.

With that in mind, we've compiled a list of when we might expect the
likeliest presidential candidates to announce whether they will run or not.

But wait, isn't it too early to be thinking about 2016?

In a word: no. Candidates will need to move quickly to shore up support
among donors, particularly with establishment juggernauts like Hillary
Clinton and Jeb Bush poised to lock down many of their parties' high-dollar
supporters. Announcing early in the cycle also comes with the added benefit
of increasing media exposure, a tempting perk for those seeking to expand
their national profile before primary season has formally begun.

And precedent shows that we're entering a key window in presidential
announcements:

— Barack Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 after launching
an exploratory committee in January. The long-shot candidate (remember
that?) gave several heavy handed signs that he was considering a run in the
months head of that announcement.

— Hillary Clinton launched her 2008 campaign in January of 2007,
intentionally timed ahead of President George W. Bush's State of the Union
address.

— John McCain, the eventual 2008 GOP nominee, announced his candidacy in
April of 2007 but launched his exploratory committee in November of 2006.

— Mitt Romney launched an exploratory committee in January of 2007 and
formally announced that he would run in February 2007. For the 2012 cycle,
in which Romney won the GOP nomination, announced his exploratory committee
in April of 2011 and formally launched his campaign in June of that year.

Potential candidates have been huddling with their closest advisers,
reaching out to would-be donors, and making visits to key early primary
states. And some of them — or at least their staffs — have already given
(very rough) estimates about when we might be able to expect their
decisions.

Republicans we're watching

Jeb Bush (R)

 Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced earlier this month that he would
“actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United
States," launching a political action committee to support that effort.
Bush, the early establishment favorite, will almost certainly launch a
full-fledged campaign but there is no indication yet when he will formally
announce.

Chris Christie (R)

 Gov. Chris Christie, who has plainly indicated he has presidential
aspirations, said last week that he will discuss a White House run with his
family over the holidays. He has not indicated when an announcement might
come, should he choose to run.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R)

 Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has made it evident that he is interested in pursuing
a presidential bid. According to National Journal, the tea party favorite
was reportedly considering a 2014 year-end announcement as recently as
September. But it's unclear how (or if) recent events — a failed coup in
the Senate and the sudden focus on U.S.-Cuban diplomatic relations — will
affect his decision.

Rand Paul (R)

 Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has already announced that he will run for
reelection to the Senate in 2016. But the freshman senator has also been
quietly building a presidential campaign infrastructure and is expected to
announce whether he will run sometime in the spring, likely in April.

Rick Perry (R)

 Outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been preparing for another presidential
bid, studying to tighten his grasp on policy and working with media experts
to polish his public persona. Perry has said that, if he chooses to run, he
will announce in May or June.

Scott Walker (R)

 Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker fought off a challenge in his home state from
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke this year, wining a crucial
victory that could bolster a national election. Politico reported in
November that Walker may be eyeing a summer 2015 announcement if he chooses
to run.

Mike Pence (R)

 Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has been weighing a presidential bid but thus far
hasn't made few affirmative steps in that direction. It remains unclear if
he will actually run.

John Kasich (R)

 Ohio Gov. John Kasich — who coasted to reelection this year in the
critical battleground state — has indicated that he may be open to a 2016
presidential bid but thus far hasn't said when he may announce his decision.

Democrats we're watching

Hillary Clinton (D)

 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the most watched potential
2016 candidate but hasn't announced yet if she intends to run. But a shadow
campaign bolstered by close allies and unaffiliated political groups have
already made her the early Democratic front-runner. Her inner circle has
indicated that she will likely not make her announcement until late spring.

Martin O’Malley (D)

 Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who would be considered a presidential long
shot candidate but has garnered favorable media attention, is reportedly
preparing a potential 2016 campaign. The governor has indicated that he
will make up his mind in January but several key allies suggest that he
will wait until April.

Jim Webb (D)

 Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb in November launched a presidential
exploratory committee and announced his candidacy in a 14-minute web video.
He became the first Democratic candidate to formally enter the race.

Elizabeth Warren (D)

 Although progressives have called on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to enter the
2016 presidential contest, the Massachusetts Democrat insists she is not
running for president. (She's not running right now, that is.)

So that's it, then -- those are the candidates?

Nope. Current events will continue changing the shape of the fledgling
field. The White House's recent diplomatic shift toward Cuba, for example,
threw Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio into the center of the national debate
over the move's implications. In seizing on that moment, Rubio has
resuscitated chatter about a potential 2016 run which many political
watchers had begun dismissing as a long shot. But even with 2015 still days
away, any new 2016 candidate may already be running short on time.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Romney tops 2016 GOP candidates in new poll”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/228086-romney-tops-2016-gop-candidates-in-new-poll>*

By Ian Swanson

December 25, 2014, 10:19 a.m. EST

Mitt Romney polls two points ahead of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in
Zogby’s latest poll on the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

Romney, the 2012 GOP standard-bearer who some believe would be the party’s
best candidate in 2016, gets 14 percent in the new poll released late
Wednesday.

That’s two points better than Bush, a favorite of the GOP establishment who
announced this month that he is exploring a possible campaign.

Narrowly trailing those two is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) at 10 percent; New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 8 percent; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) at 7 percent.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker gets 5 percent, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and
Texas Gov. Rick Perry are favored by 4 percent and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) wins support from 3 percent, as does Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Nineteen percent list “other” or “not sure” when they are polled,
highlighting the wide-open nature of the GOP race.

The poll also suggests all of the Republicans would trail Hillary Clinton
is she chooses to run for the White House.

It found Clinton leading all of the top tier GOP candidates by wide
margins. She wins 49 percent support compared to 34 percent for Bush; 51
percent compared to 33 percent for Paul; 48 percent compared to 33 percent
for Christie and 50 percent compared to 35 percent for Romney.

The Zogby poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus six points.

*New York Post: “How Hillary could make ObamaCare worse”
<http://nypost.com/2014/12/25/how-hillary-could-make-obamacare-worse/>*

By Betsy McCaughey

December 25, 2014, 9:44 p.m. EST

AN ABC-Washington Post poll shows 61 percent of Democrats support Hillary
Clinton for president in 2016, far more than other contenders. If she wins
the White House, health reform could become even more painful than
ObamaCare.

Clinton ducks questions about her views on health reform. But the plan she
proposed in 1993, as first lady, raises concerns.

That proposal was even more coercive than ObamaCare. She put price controls
on doctors and limits on how much health care the nation could consume
annually and how much you could buy for your own family — even if you paid
for it yourself.

True, that was 20 years ago. But it’s an important window into her thinking.

Before Americans choose candidates for 2016, they ought to ask how much
power they want government to have over their health care and whether
Clinton stands by the coercive plan she proposed the last time she was in
the White House.

Start with whether the government should force us to have insurance. The
Obama administration is using ads and street fairs to convince people to
get covered. Millions are still saying “no.” ObamaCare penalizes the
uninsured but also offers exemptions, including just pleading “hardship.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 90 percent of the uninsured
will not be penalized.

Clinton wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. If you failed to enroll or the
plan you chose was oversubscribed, government would assign you one (Health
Security Act of 1993, pp. 144, 146; the text is available online).

As for people not paying their premiums, Hillary told a House hearing back
then that an equivalent amount would “be deducted from their wages or
obtained through tax deductions in some other way.”

Under Hillary’s plan, to see a doctor you would have to prove you’re
enrolled or get enrolled on the spot. The doctor could only be paid by the
plan, not by you.

Government officials would put price controls on what doctors charge,
barring them from charging more or accepting payments directly from
patients (pp. 236-237). Why would anyone want to pay a doctor directly?
Privacy for one thing. Access, for another.

Access would have been a problem. Her plan limited what you would be
allowed to pay for insurance. That limits how much money is in the pot to
take care of you when you’re sick. It turns insurers into rationers.

Princeton Prof. Paul Starr (Hillary’s Jonathan Gruber) said it would force
doctors and hospitals “to manage under constraint.” Under HillaryCare,
government could outlaw any plan that cost 20 percent above the average
plan.

In contrast, ObamaCare doesn’t outlaw generous plans. Its Cadillac tax,
scheduled for 2018, would discourage them, but union opposition makes that
tax an uncertainty.

Under ObamaCare, people who can afford it pay concierge doctors extra to
get care without waiting. But Clinton’s scheme effectively barred you from
going outside the system to get better or faster care.

The biggest difference between ObamaCare and Hillary’s approach is how they
rein in the nation’s health spending. ObamaCare tries payment innovations,
such as Accountable Care Organizations, with little progress so far.

Federal actuaries predict health spending will increase rapidly, hitting a
staggering 19.3 percent of GDP by 2023.

Hillary wouldn’t put up with that.

Her plan used coercion. At the time, she said, “We all must learn to live
within a budget.” The government would impose a dollar limit on what the
nation could spend.

If spending neared that limit, insurers and government payers would be
legally required to cut payments to doctors, nurses and hospitals to avoid
going over budget (p. 137). Such central planning — even in the face of
unforeseen problems such as the flu or EV-68 — would risk patients’ lives
and the livelihoods of doctors and nurses. Is that what Americans want?

Hillary may have discarded some of her radical ideas. And, of course,
anything she proposes would have to get through Congress. Nonetheless,
voting for Hillary before knowing where she stands on health reform could
be dangerous to your health.

*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>)