Subject: Correct The Record Saturday January 10, 2015 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 13:15:34 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Saturday January 10, 2015 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*MSNBC: “For 2016 Democratic hopefuls, a delay of game”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/2016-democratic-hopefuls-delay-game>*

“As compared to 2008, the field this time around could be best described as
quiet, with most cooling their heels until spring.”

*The New York Times: “Mitt Romney Says He’s Considering a 2016 Presidential
Run”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/us/politics/mitt-romney-says-hes-considering-a-2016-presidential-run.html?ref=politics>*

“Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, told a group of
donors in New York on Friday that he was considering running for president
again next year, sending a signal to the party’s financiers that they
should not yet commit to Jeb Bush.”

*BuzzFeed: “The Last Temptation Of Mitt”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-last-temptation-of-mitt?utm_term=.td6xpxmQq#.ucJMKpYB9z>*

“‘He’s not going to be intimidated by Bill Clinton sitting in the front row
of a debate, looking at him,’ the adviser said of Romney. ‘His dad has run
for president. He’s run before.’”

*Talking Points Memo: “A Deformed Woman: Hillary Clinton and the Men Who
Hate Her” <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ts/men-who-hate-hillary-clinton>*

"Here’s what happened the last time Hillary Clinton ran for president: she
drove men wild. Well, certain men. Especially certain men on the right. You
could recognize them by the flecks of foam in the corners of their mouths
when the subject of her candidacy arose. And they’re already girding
themselves for the next time around, because there’s something about
Hillary that just gets them all worked up."

*Politico: “Mitt Romney says he’s considering a 2016 run”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-considers-2016-presidential-campaign-114132.html>*

“Mitt Romney told a group of longtime supporters on Friday that he is
considering running for president, a major turnaround for a past GOP
nominee who just a year ago categorically ruled out a 2016 run.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “What the heck is Mitt Romney doing?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/10/what-the-heck-is-mitt-romney-doing/>*

“The simplest answer is because a part of Romney would still like to be
president and he doesn't want someone else -- named Jeb Bush -- to
foreclose that possibility for him.”

*Vox: “5 reasons every Republican is running for president”
<http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7522657/republican-2016-primary-romney>*

“5) They can all position themselves as an alternative to Hillary Clinton”

*Slate: “The Warren Commission”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/elizabeth_warren_does_well_in_peter_hart_focus_group_voters_not_excited.html>*

[Subtitle:] “In a new focus group, voters agreed about one thing: Elizabeth
Warren is one of the most intriguing contenders for 2016.”

*Articles:*

*MSNBC: “For 2016 Democratic hopefuls, a delay of game”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/2016-democratic-hopefuls-delay-game>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

January 9, 2015, 2:39 p.m. EST

Democratic aspirants are taking a more leisurely approach to 2016, even as
Republican presidential hopefuls are scrambling to lock down top political
talent and raise campaign cash more quickly than their potential rivals.

Flashback to this point during the 2008 presidential cycle: Three major
Democratic candidates — Tom Vilsack, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich —
had already declared their candidacies, while announcements from Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd were coming right around
the corner in later January. As compared to 2008, the field this time
around could be best described as quiet, with most cooling their heels
until spring.

The only candidate officially looking at a run right now is former Virginia
Sen. Jim Webb, who announced an exploratory committee in November. But he’s
since gone dark, and hasn’t made a public appearance since Dec. 3. And
spokesperson says he will be out of commission for some time as he
recuperates from knee surgery.

“Jim has just undergone a full knee replacement as a consequence of
shrapnel wounds received from an enemy grenade,” spokesperson Craig
Crawford said Friday. “He is out of the hospital and recovering quite well.
The upside is he can catch up with the new season of ‘Downton Abbey.’”

Webb served in Vietnam and received shrapnel wounds while shielding a
fellow Marine during a daring maneuver, for which he was later awarded the
Navy Cross.

Earlier in the week, Crawford told msnbc that Webb is in “merely an
exploratory phase.” “Right now there are no events on the schedule. That
will come if Jim decides to run,” he said.

Thursday night during an appearance at the University of Chicago, former
Gov. Martin O’Malley said he is “seriously considering” a run in 2016, but
added that he’s going to take the next few months to resettle his family
after he leaves the governor’s mansion in two weeks. He told the Associated
Press afterwards that he’ll make a decision on whether to run by the spring.

Back in Washington, Sen. Bernie Sanders — who has also said he is seriously
eyeing a run — is busy with a new job in the new Senate, and so far has no
political events publicly scheduled this month, a spokesperson said, though
that could change going forward. He is scheduled to headline a progressive
summit in Pennsylvania in February. Sanders previously said he’ll decide in
March on a possible bid for president.

While the presumed front-runner on the Republican side, former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush, jump-started Republicans with an early declaration that he will
explore entering the race, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton
appears be aiming for a spring announcement date. “She’s the pacesetter in
this thing,” veteran Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who is advising
Sanders, told msnbc.

Clinton has two speeches sponsored by a bank in Canada scheduled for later
this month, and two more private appearances planned for February and
March, but so far nothing else has been announced publicly. Her plans as of
now also don’t include public appearances in the key presidential race
state of Iowa and New Hampshire anytime soon. “Things are pretty quiet in
the near term,” said Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill.

Nonetheless, there is plenty happening beneath the surface as Clinton
quietly assembles a prospective campaign team.

Shortening the primary campaign in an attempt to run out the clock while in
a strong position is a classic move for front-runners. But with Clinton
leaving the field open, some Democratic operatives are puzzled as to why
her potential rivals don’t seem eager to take advantage of the vacuum.

“For any of the candidates, time is the most valuable resource that they’ve
got,” said John Davis, an Iowa native and former Edwards aide who went on
to serve as chief of staff to Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley. “Activists and folks
in Iowa are ready for candidates to get on the ground.”

O’Malley, like Edwards, deployed staff and money to early presidential
states to help Democratic candidates in the midterm elections before their
prospective runs. But Edwards made a point of keeping his operation in the
state up and running, transitioning it into a presidential run, instead of
closing down shop after the midterms.

While Webb has health reasons for staying off the trail, O’Malley on
Thursday alluded to personal reasons relating to his family.

A lack of finances could also be a hindrance for some potential candidates,
since deploying a campaign requires major resource commitments. Eventually,
though, candidates will make it to the field.

“You can’t explore without leaving the house,” Davis said.

*The New York Times: “Mitt Romney Says He’s Considering a 2016 Presidential
Run”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/us/politics/mitt-romney-says-hes-considering-a-2016-presidential-run.html?ref=politics>*

By Jonathan Martin and Nicholas Confessore

January 9, 2015

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, told a
group of donors in New York on Friday that he was considering running for
president again next year, sending a signal to the party’s financiers that
they should not yet commit to Jeb Bush.

Meeting with about 30 contributors in the Manhattan office of the New York
Jets owner, Woody Johnson, Mr. Romney said he was “thinking about it,”
according to Spencer Zwick, a longtime adviser who was at the meeting,
first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

“Mitt is considering it because he thinks he can make a difference,” said
Mr. Zwick, who has been among the loyalists to Mr. Romney hoping he will
pursue a third race for the White House.

Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, first ran for president in
2008. He had said repeatedly since his loss to President Obama in 2012 that
he would not run again.

His apparent interest in another bid comes as Mr. Bush, a former Florida
governor, has dominated the news with a series of steps toward a
presidential run. He has started both a leadership political action
committee and a “super PAC,” and has begun traveling the country to meet
with Republican contributors — including, this week, in the Boston area,
for years Mr. Romney’s home. Mr. Bush has also repeatedly criticized Mr.
Romney’s 2012 campaign in recent weeks.

Mr. Zwick said that Mr. Romney’s decision would not hinge on who else was
in the race, but he did acknowledge that Mr. Romney’s comments on Friday
could cause some high-level Republican donors to at least hold off on
committing to Mr. Bush.

“If there are donors thinking in a vacuum, ‘I’m with Jeb because Mitt is
not running,’ then of course they are now going to have more to think
about,” he said.

The two former governors are not close. Mr. Romney’s loyalists have not
forgotten that Mr. Bush did not endorse Mr. Romney’s 2012 campaign until
the latter half of March, when Mr. Romney already had a firm grasp on the
Republican nomination. And Mr. Bush could barely conceal his dislike for
how Mr. Romney handled the immigration issue in both of his presidential
primary campaigns.

Mr. Zwick said that Mr. Romney would most likely have to make a decision
“over the next 60 days.”

Mr. Romney had told donors at past events, including one in Houston shortly
before last year’s election, that he did not intend to run again, but he
did not rule it out. He told those supporters that he would run if it
looked as though others in the Republican field could not win a general
election, and if leading party figures encouraged him to enter the race.

Asked what had changed since those conversations, Mr. Zwick said, “He’s
looked at the landscape of issues out there.”

The meeting on Friday, which included several people on a conference call
line, gathered some of Mr. Romney’s top fund-raisers and donors from the
2012 campaign, including Patrick Durkin, a managing director at Barclays
Capital; the investor Julian Robertson; the hedge fund manager Anthony
Scaramucci; the New York Yankees president, Randy Levine; and Edward
Conard, a former executive at the private equity firm Bain Capital. Mr.
Johnson, the Jets owner, remains uncommitted in the 2016 race and did not
participate in the discussion.

Mr. Romney told the group that his wife, Ann, was increasingly in favor of
a third presidential bid, although their sons had mixed emotions, according
to people who attended. But he added that he believed he was “the best
candidate, with the best solutions, the best ideas,” according to one of
the attendees.

Mr. Romney asked each person in turn what he or she thought of his chances.
Some gently criticized the management of his 2012 campaign, guests said,
while others encouraged him to run.

Mr. Zwick emphasized that Mr. Romney recognized how difficult it could be
to run a third time. “That’s why he hasn’t announced anything,” he said.

*BuzzFeed: “The Last Temptation Of Mitt”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-last-temptation-of-mitt?utm_term=.td6xpxmQq#.ucJMKpYB9z>*

By McKay Coppins

January 9, 2015, 10:31 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] How Romney got from 11 nos to maybe on the question of 2016 —
and what he has to decide before he takes the plunge. “Can you imagine what
Ted Cruz is going to do to Jeb Bush?” one Romney insider tells BuzzFeed
News.

It wasn’t long after Mitt Romney tottered off the national stage in
November, 2012, bringing an end — it seemed — to the long, tragic story of
his political career, when Spencer Zwick started getting phone calls from
conservative millionaires who were clamoring for one last sequel.

Zwick, the square-jawed finance wunderkind who masterminded the candidate’s
phenomenally successful fundraising operation in 2012, had returned after
the election to the private equity firm he co-founded with Romney’s son,
Tagg — but Mitt’s network of GOP money men wouldn’t stop hounding him.
Inside Solamere Capital’s pristine, white-walled offices on Boston’s trendy
Newbury Street, Zwick often found himself on the phone with major
Republican fundraisers, bundlers, and donors putting the same questions to
him.

“I got calls from people every day asking, ‘Do you think he’ll do it? How
can we convince him to do it?’” Zwick said in an interview with BuzzFeed
News.

With Friday’s news that Romney told a group of donors he was now actively
considering a third presidential bid in 2016, it appears the boosters have
gotten through. “Everybody in here can go tell your friends that I’m
considering a run,” the former candidate told the gathering in midtown
Manhattan, according to Politico. But insiders who spoke to BuzzFeed News
about Romney’s evolution on the 2016 question said he only began to
entertain the possibility recently, and that he still needs to weigh a
number of factors — including Jeb Bush’s electability — before he decides
to take the plunge.

Zwick didn’t need donors to convince him that the ex-nominee should run
again; as a longtime loyalist who had worked closely with Romney from the
Salt Lake City Olympics to the Massachusetts governor’s office and beyond,
he said he repeatedly urged his mentor to keep his options open after the
2012 election.

“My argument was that 60 million people already voted for this guy,” Zwick
said. “He has the experience, he has the background, he has the skill set.
My view is if we’re going to beat Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or
whoever they nominate, we have to find somebody who can not only get
through the primary, but who knows he can do the job. I don’t see somebody
in the [Republican] field who has the skill set he does. My view is he has
to do this.”

But despite all the cheerleading, Zwick said Romney was genuinely averse to
the idea of a third run all through 2013 and much of 2014 — a sentiment
that often came through whenever reporters asked him about his political
future. For example, when a New York Times reporter interviewed him a year
ago after the Sundance Film Festival screening of the documentary, Mitt — a
sympathetic portrayal that did much to rehabilitate his image, at least in
the political class — she asked whether he would run again. His response:
“Oh no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no.”

Most political observers counted the nos (there were 11) and took the
emphatic denial at face value.

“I truly think that it was never a thought that he would ever do it again,”
Zwick said.

But then, the midterm elections kicked into gear and Romney — who became an
in-demand surrogate and fundraiser, stumping in races across the country —
caught the campaign bug again.

“Through the 2014 elections, he spent a lot of time on the road talking to
voters,” Zwick said. “He was reminded once again being on the trail that
there are a lot of really important issues facing the country and he has
the skill set to solve them, and that has weighed heavily on him.”

The midterms also corresponded with a wave of stories in the political
press about a possible Romney 2016 bid, many of which originated with
supporters who wanted to fertilize the speculation. It worked; the stories
ensured that hopeful donors would keep calling Zwick and other people they
believed to have Romney’s ear, making the media predictions a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Zwick said he couldn’t point to one day or event
that changed the ex-candidate’s mind, but he eventually began to see more
willingness on Romney’s part to engage the idea.

Another former campaign adviser said Romney has been troubled by the Obama
administration’s foreign policy, and what he sees as the disastrous
consequences of the United States shrinking from its role as international
leader.

“Mitt has been waking up every morning watching what’s happening to the
world, and he’s incredibly distressed,” said the adviser, who requested
anonymity to speak without Romney’s permission. He added that the former
candidate believes his widely mocked 2012 warnings about Russia being “our
number one geopolitical foe” — along with other hawkish campaign rhetoric —
has been vindicated by world events. “Mitt predicted everything.”

As he weighs his choices in the coming weeks, Romney won’t be deterred by
which candidates enter the primary, or by any displays of fundraising
muscle-flexing, Zwick said. Earlier on Friday, Bloomberg Politics reported
that Bush’s team set a fundraising goal of $100 million for the first three
months of this year in an effort to scare off prospective primary
opponents. (Bush’s spokesperson said the goal came from donors, and that
their actual target is “far more modest.”)

But Zwick said fundraising is the least of their concerns.

“It’s a primary,” he said. “You go back, there’s always been multiple
candidates in the race that could raise money…. And he has actually already
won a primary before.”

According to one former adviser, the biggest political question Romney will
be considering as he makes his decision is whether Bush will be able to
make it to the general election.

“Look, Jeb’s a good guy. I think the governor likes Jeb,” the adviser said.
“But Jeb is Common Core, Jeb is immigration, Jeb has been talking about
raising taxes recently. Can you imagine Jeb trying to get through a
Republican primary? Can you imagine what Ted Cruz is going to do to Jeb
Bush? I mean, that’s going to be ugly.”

The adviser added that aside from Bush, Romney doesn’t believe any of the
Republicans in the field are ready to take on Hillary Clinton in the
general election.

“He’s not going to be intimidated by Bill Clinton sitting in the front row
of a debate, looking at him,” the adviser said of Romney. “His dad has run
for president. He’s run before.”

*Talking Points Memo: “A Deformed Woman: Hillary Clinton and the Men Who
Hate Her” <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ts/men-who-hate-hillary-clinton>*

By Laura Kipnis

[No Date Mentioned]

[END NOTE:] Excerpted from MEN: Notes from an Ongoing Investigation by Laura
 Kipnis published by METROPOLITAN BOOKS, an imprint of HENRY HOLT AND
COMPANY, LLC. Copyright © 2014 by Laura Kipnis. All rights reserved.

Here’s what happened the last time Hillary Clinton ran for president: she
drove men wild. Well, certain men. Especially certain men on the right. You
could recognize them by the flecks of foam in the corners of their mouths
when the subject of her candidacy arose. And they’re already girding
themselves for the next time around, because there’s something about
Hillary that just gets them all worked up.

But what exactly? Despise her they do, yet they’re also strangely drawn to
her, in some inexplicably intimate way. She occupies their attention. They
spend a lot of time thinking about her—enumerating her character flaws,
dissecting her motives, analyzing her physical shortcomings with a
penetrating, clinical eye: those thick ankles and dumpy hips, the
ever-changing hairdos. You’d think they were talking about their first
wives. There’s the same over-invested quality, an edge of spite, some
ancient wound not yet repaired. And how they love conjecturing upon her
sexuality! Or lack of, heh heh. Is she frigid, is she gay? Heh heh. Yes,
they have many theories about her, complete with detailed forensic analyses
of her marriage, probably more detailed than their thoughts about their own.

My point is that you can tell a lot about a man by what he thinks about
Hillary, maybe even everything. She’s not just another presidential
candidate, she’s a sophisticated diagnostic instrument for calibrating male
anxiety, which is running high. Understandably, given that the whole
male-female, who-runs-the-world question is pretty much up for grabs.

As our tour guides into these subterranean psychical thickets, I’ve
enlisted a selection of Hillary’s right-wing biographers to lead the way,
or more specifically, a selection of authors obsessed enough to write
entire books about a woman they detest while still being lucid enough to
find a commercial publisher. Unfortunately this excluded self-published
works like Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And
America's Demise by Sheldon Filger, but even the painfully repetitious
title screamed for the interventions of a professional editor, and life is
short. I also declined to read any books that came with voodoo dolls; sadly
this ruled out The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit: Stick It to Her, Before She
Sticks It to You! by Turk Regan, but as fuming tirades were in no short
supply, I felt that I could afford to be choosy.

Biographies, even bad ones, are the record of a relationship: temporary
marriages, so to speak. More than a few self-reflective biographers have
admitted as much. And for whatever reasons, Hillary seems to attract a
certain type of husband: guys with a lot of psychological baggage,
emotional intensity, and messy inner lives.

Let’s begin with Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., author of Madame Hillary: The Dark
Road to the White House, since if Hillary’s biographer-foes sound like
embittered ex-husbands, in Tyrrell, founder and editor-in-chief of the
far-right American Spectator, we’re fortunate to have a biographer who’s
occasionally mused in print about his actual ex-wife. So who gets it
worse—Hillary or the ex? Actually it’s a toss-up. Who would have predicted:
coincidentally it turns out that Madame Tyrrell and Madame Hillary share an
uncanny number of similar traits. Hillary’s a self-righteous,
self-regarding narcissist, “a case study in what psychiatrists call ‘the
controlling personality,” and assumes the world will share her conviction
that she’s always blameless. Compare with Tyrrell on the soon-to-be-ex,
from his political memoir The Conservative Crack-Up: “She resorted to
tennis, then religion, and then psychotherapy. Finally she tried
divorce—all common American coping mechanisms for navigating middle age.”
When Tyrrell worries that suburban women will secretly identify with
Hillary’s independence and break from their husbands’ politics in the
privacy of the voting booth, clearly suburban women’s late-breaking
independence is territory he has cause to know and fear.

Hillary’s disposition is dark, sour, and conspiratorial; she has a paranoid
mind, a combative style, is thin-skinned, and “prone to angry outbursts.”
Whereas the ex-Mrs. T., we learn, was afflicted with “random wrath”; and as
divorce negotiations were in their final stages, threatened to make the
proceedings as public and lurid as possible. Hillary has “a prehensile
nature,” which makes it sound like she hangs from branches by her feet.
(Tyrrell has always fancied himself a latter day Mencken, flashing his big
vocabulary around like a thick roll of banknotes.) And while he nowhere
actually says that his ex-wife hung from branches by her feet, the
reference to protracted divorce negotiations probably indicates that
“grasping”—the definition of prehensile (I had to look it up)—is a
characterization he wouldn’t argue with. When Tyrrell writes of Bill and
Hillary that there was an emotional side to the arrangement, with each
fulfilling the other’s idiosyncratic needs, as we see, he’s been there
himself.

Threatening ex-wives, property settlements, bad breath—not exactly
lighthearted stuff. Tyrrell at least tries to be amusing about it, in the
sense that love transformed into hatred can be amusing, in a bilious,
horribly painful sort of way. Not so with Edward Klein, author of the
bestselling The Truth About Hillary, and a tragically humorless type. When
Klein rants, “As always with Hillary, it was all about her,” note the
rancid flavor of marital over-familiarity—he’s really just had it with her.
He’s practically venomous. Though he’s also so suspicious of her sexual
proclivities that unintentional humor abounds: he’s like an angry Inspector
Clouseau with gaydar. The inconvenient fact that there’s no particular
evidence Hillary bends that way dissuades him not.

Thus we learn that Hillary went to a college with a long tradition of
lesbianism (Wellesley), where she read a lot of lesbian literature, and two
of her college friends would later become out-of-the-closet lesbians, and
later, some of her Wellesley classmates were invited for “sleepovers” to
the White House? (Get it? Sleepovers.) In 1972, a Methodist church magazine
she subscribed to published a special issue on radical lesbian and feminist
themes edited by two—you guessed it—lesbians. In college, her role models
were feminists who refused to wear pretty clothes, and sometimes appeared
mannish; her White House Chief of Staff was also mannish looking. Though
according to Klein, Hillary never much liked sex to begin with. Sounding
like a Monty Python rendition of a Freudian analyst, Klein speculates about
a fight Hillary once had with a college boyfriend about not wanting to go
skiing; skiing, say Klein, “might have been a substitute for an honest
discussion about her sexual frigidity.” The episode ended with Hillary
retreating into “icy silence.” Get it? Icy. (He also quotes Richard Nixon,
of all people, who says that Hillary is “ice cold.”)

Yet Klein reports that Hillary had a torrid affair with Vince Foster, the
deputy White House counsel (and her former law partner) who later committed
suicide. This would make her a frigid closeted bisexual adulteress, for
anyone keeping track.

If it’s a handy truism that constant sexual innuendos mask a discomfort
with sex, then Klein is one uptight dude. But there’s so much sexual angst
among these guys generally, along with quite mixed feelings about the
female body itself. When Klein writes of Hillary’s lower regions that
though she’s “a small-boned woman from the waist up, she was squat and
lumpy from the waist down, with wide hips, calves, and ankles,” the blatant
bodily aversion in the phrase “squat and lumpy” isn’t just a disagreement
with her health care plan. Klein’s concentration on Clinton’s physical
appearance is so microscopic that you fully expect to turn the page and
find an index of her moles, accompanied by a close reading of what they
indicate about her moral insufficiencies.

None of this is exactly a testimonial to his deep self-acuity. Or very
attractive propensities in a man, it must be said. Though maybe he’s
unconsciously identifying when he writes that Hillary had “always thought
of herself as an ugly duckling,” and particularly hated her body, which
caused her to neglect her personal appearance as a young woman, and go
around dressed like a hippie in shapeless clothes, and with hair that
looked like it hadn’t been washed for a month. Or secretly commiserating
about her feeling “so hopelessly unattractive that she did not bother to
shave her legs and underarms, and deliberately dressed badly so she would
not have to compete with more attractive women in a contest she could not
possibly win.” I feel compelled to note, if we’re going down this path,
that—having seen a few photos of the author—this is a man who can’t have
felt entirely secure about his competitive mettle on this score either.

Hillary’s physicality really does loom large for her biographers. Tyrrell
too spends many passages mocking her youthful hairdos, down to the thick
eyebrows which once “would have collected coal dust in a Welsh mining
village.” In other words, she’s an overly hairy woman, in addition to
everything else. Hairdo, eyebrows—thankfully we’re not privy to data on the
condition of her bikini line. Tyrrell sounds like an aspirant for the Vidal
Sassoon endowed chair on the Clinton-hating Right when he concludes that
Hillary’s “search for the perfect hairstyle has finally been resolved into
a neatly elegant businesswoman’s coiffure” and that she “seems to have
turned her hair into a major strength.” He also concedes that Hillary
“flirts well” and has evolved into “a handsome woman.” Klein gets in a few
digs on this point himself, as you’d expect, benevolently mentioning that
Hillary’s the kind of homely woman whose looks have improved with age, then
trotting out another anonymous medial expert to testify that she’s been
“Botoxed to the hilt.”

No, Hillary doesn’t exactly elicit the best in her foes. On the sexual
creepiness meter, Klein gets some stiff competition from Carl Limbacher,
who writes for the far-right news outlet NewsMax and is the author of
Hillary’s Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton’s Ruthless Agenda to Take the
White House. Here’s another biographer a little too keen to nose out the
truth about Hillary’s sexuality: Bill Clinton is a predator, Hillary digs
it, and this is the key that unlocks her character. If Hillary didn’t
literally hold down the victims while Bill did the deed, she was complicit
nonetheless—“a victimizer who actually enabled her husbands predations,”
since “a woman with half the intellect of Hillary Clinton would understand
that she’s married to a ravenous sexual predator at best—a brutal serial
rapist at worst.” At least he compliments her intellect. I’m dying to know
what Limbacher imagines Hillary’s wearing when he fantasizes about her in
the henchwoman-to-rape role—her Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS outfit or the navy
blue pantsuit.

As we see, the problem for Hillary’s biographers isn’t that a woman’s
aspiring to be president—none of them mount an actual argument against
women as presidential candidates. The problem is that Hillary’s a deformed
woman. She’s a sadist, a victim, asexual, a dyke—maybe all at once.

Taking the measure of Hillary’s perverted femininity also preoccupies John
Podhoretz in Can She Be Stopped: Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President
of the United States Unless… On the one hand, Podhoretz wants to like
Hillary, even though he finds her tough to warm up to as a woman: she never
figured out what to do with her hair and clothes, in his diagnosis, she
isn’t a raving beauty, and her manner is almost pathologically unsexy.
Interestingly, Podhoretz thinks this anti-feminine quality may actually
work in her favor: being “neither girlish nor womanly” with a “hard to
describe style” could be the perfect blend for the first woman president,
he muses, since a president has to be a little scary, not seem
emotional—basically she should be an unlikable bitch. “And Hillary is a
bitch.” Feigning worry that saying this kind of thing makes him sounds
sexist—while clearly admiring himself for saying it—he explains that a
woman presidential candidate needs to show she can be manly, and if any
woman politician can pass for a tough guy, it’s Hillary. This scares him,
though in a sweaty, enthralled sort of way. Call him Mr. Conflicted.

But maybe inner maelstroms come with the territory when Mom is the
ultra-conservative doyenne and fiery anti-feminist, Midge Decter, author of
numerous books denouncing the women’s movement and the dupes who fell for
it. Dad is the notoriously pugnacious neo-con, Norman. When Podhoretz says,
incoherently, that Hillary had an “easy path due in part to feminism,” he
sounds like the dutiful son, channeling Midge. What mother could ask for
more? But things can’t have been easy for John: between the powerhouse mom,
the romantic impetuosities and flip-flops, and the politically
strange-bedfellows current marriage (though I’m sure they’re a lovely
couple), Podhoretz has more than his share of family baggage when it comes
to love and politics. As has Hillary herself, needless to say—in a better
world the two of them could have a fascinating heart-to-heart on the
subject.

Instead, Podhoretz spends a good chunk of his book proffering weird advice
to Hillary on how to position herself to win the election, even while
bashing her senseless at every turn. Example: to avoid being upstaged by
Bill, Hillary should treat him “as though he were her father—there to
provide her with emotional support and little else.” Here we pause to note
that Podhoretz is someone whose career has always been upstaged by his more
famous father. How can the reader keep her footing amidst this mad swirl of
relatives, husbands, ambitions, and projections?

By the way, Emmett Tyrrell has some free advice for Hillary too: she should
get herself a divorce, and pronto. Since Bill is not only goatish but also
“ithyphallic” (I had to look that up too), Hillary could present herself to
women voters as “a victim of the male penile imperative,” then start dating
again. I imagine Tyrrell is so pro-divorce because his own life improved so
dramatically following one, especially on the penile imperative front. His
fans will doubtless recall Tyrrell’s bubbly reports about life as a
swinging bachelor, picking up “terrific co-eds” at various right-wing
think-tank shindigs, and not returning home alone. Yes, conservatives do
score, as Tyrrell—who charges Hillary with having been too self-disclosing
in her memoir, Living History—makes sure to let us know. His preference is
for the “soignée” and “physiologically well-appointed,” though
unfortunately one of his soignée dates is mistaken for a hooker when he
drops by a conservative gathering at the Lehrman Institute on his way to Au
Club, a then-happening Manhattan nightspot. (A friend explains that when a
conservative shows up somewhere with a beautiful woman, he’s usually paying
by the hour.)

Tyrrell has actually been quite the gallant about aging female Republicans
in the past, waxing lyrical about right-wing sex kitten Phyllis Schlafly’s
foxiness and Nancy Reagan’s large beautiful eyes, both of whom are perhaps
a quarter century his senior—to which one can only say, “You go, Bob.”

But could he ever go for a Democrat? As most agree, Hillary’s aging well,
and Tyrrell hasn’t been entirely critical. On the plus side, she reminds
him of Madame Mao, the “white boned demon” who was never more dangerous
than when wearing a seductive guise, and Tyrrell is on record as a man who
likes a seductive guise. However, in an exceedingly strange passage toward
the end of the book, we learn that Hillary’s ultimate dream is to be
commandant of a “national Cambodian re-education camp for anyone caught
wearing an Adam Smith necktie or scarf.” Or perhaps it’s also an
extermination camp, since he adds: “Welcome to Camp Hillary. Please remove
your glasses and deposit them on the heap. (Was that a flash of gold I saw
in your teeth?)” Yes, it’s off to the killing fields for Tyrrell and his
kind—having received her political education at the feet of Pol Pot, it’s
definitely curtains for the bourgeois enemy once Hillary takes the reins. I
think Tyrrell means all this to be witty. He concludes by telling readers
he’s “taking the high road, since hatred is an acid on the soul.”

Here we’ve entered the realm of male hysteria, where reason and intellect
go to die, though Tyrrell can be a hoot for those who find this kind of
thing entertaining.

Speaking of male hysteria brings us to the case of Tyrrell’s protégé at the
American Spectator, David Brock, and his biography, The Seduction of
Hillary Rodham. After receiving a million dollar book advance to write a
smear job on Hillary similar to the one he’d previously performed on
Clarence Thomas accuser Anita Hill (Brock was famously the author of the “a
bit nutty and a bit slutty” line about Hill), a strange thing happened when
he tried to plunge the dagger again. Somehow he couldn’t. Sure there was
the stuff about the 60s radicalism that Hillary never really abandoned,
including a catty analysis of her college wardrobe. And like the rest, he
spends pages enumerating her bodily crimes and misdemeanors: given her
thick legs she adopted the sort of “loose-fitting, flowing pants favored by
the Viet Cong” (just call her Ho Chi Rodham); along with these, she sported
white socks and sandals (here, even I must protest), wore no makeup, piled
her hair on top of her head, and “came from the ‘look-like-shit school of
feminism.’” Even once ensconced in the professional world she cut a “comic
figure” with her hair fried into an Orphan Annie perm and a “huge eyebrow
across her forehead that looked like a giant caterpillar.”

But more of the time it’s an intermittently compassionate portrait of a
gawky, brainy, well-intentioned Midwestern girl swept off her feet by a
charismatic Southern charmer, who migrated to the backwaters of Arkansas—or
Dogpatch, as Brock likes to call it—to advance Bill’s political fortunes,
sacrificing herself and her principles for love. Bill repaid her by having
sex with everyone in sight. But Hillary wasn’t a phony, and shouldn’t have
had to play the part to advance Bill’s career, Brock insists—he even says
that her physical appearance should never have become a political issue,
notwithstanding the amount of time he devotes to cataloguing it.

One of fascinating aspects of Brock’s employment situation was that he
happens to be gay and the Spectator happens to regularly fulminate against
gay rights, as did his yappy boss Tyrrell whenever given the chance. When
Brock speculates that Hillary might have been “perversely drawn to the
rejection implied by Bill’s philandering,” willing to accept compromises
and humiliation in the sexual arena because of the greater good she and
Bill could together accomplish, Brock—who’d once thrown a gala party to
celebrate the hundredth day of Newt Gingrich’s anti-gay Contract With
America—could have been describing his own career arc too. The big problem
for him was that he ended up identifying with Hillary when he was supposed
to be vilifying her. Some mysterious alchemy took place in the course of
his writing this book: instead of exposing Hillary to the world, she
exposed Brock to himself. The result was a stormy break-up with his pals on
the Right: he became persona non grata in his former circles.

But he and Hillary had some sort of imaginary bond, at least in Brock’s
imagination. He describes waiting in line for several hours at a bookstore
for Hillary to sign his copy of It Takes a Village, and where he hoped to
stage their first face-to-face meeting. The question on his mind, he
confesses, is what she thinks of him. But when he reaches the head of the
line, faces up to the real Hillary rather than the imaginary one,
identifies himself and asks when he could have an interview, Hillary’s wry
reply is, “Probably never.”

All biography is ultimately fiction,” Bernard Malamud wrote in Dubin’s
Lives, his novel about a biographer. What would he have said about this
motley collection of writers: all biography is ultimately a Rorschach test?
The various Hillaries that emerge are fictive enough, yet clearly they have
an inner truth for their creators. Each invents his own personal
Hillary—from baroque sexual fantasies straight out of The Honeymoon Killers
and girl-girl sexcapades, to big sis—then has to slay his creation, while
paying tribute to her power with these displays of antagonism and
ambivalence. They’re caught in her grip, but they don’t know why; they spin
tales about her treachery and perversity, as if that explains it. Except
that the harder they try to knock her off her perch, the more shrill and
unmanned they seem.

*Politico: “Mitt Romney says he’s considering a 2016 run”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-considers-2016-presidential-campaign-114132.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

January 9, 2015, 4:42 p.m. EST

Mitt Romney told a group of longtime supporters on Friday that he is
considering running for president, a major turnaround for a past GOP
nominee who just a year ago categorically ruled out a 2016 run.

If he follows through, it would be Romney’s third White House campaign, and
it would shake up the already large field of Republicans eyeing the
presidency. But even many Romney supporters are skeptical he will
ultimately jump in and risk losing three times.

“Everybody in here can go tell your friends that I’m considering a run,”
Romney said at a private meeting in New York with about 30 former donors,
according to one source.

The former Massachusetts governor, who was the Republican presidential
nominee in 2012, said he had a number of ideas about how to help the
country, and that one of the issues he’d like to address is poverty, two
people on hand at the meeting said. He also pledged that if he does decide
to join the race, he would run a much different campaign than he has in the
past.

Romney’s 2012 race was plagued by complaints about insularity and a lack of
a clear, defining message beyond being the anti-President Obama. He was
caricatured by Democrats as a cold-blooded jobs killer during his private
equity days, and was never able to relate to voters.

The gathering was called a few weeks ago and was held in midtown Manhattan.
Romney’s remarks were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

People on hand included financier Patrick Durkin, and Alex Nabab, both of
whom have committed to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is also exploring
a 2016 run, and were involved in events with him earlier in the week in New
York City and Connecticut. That both are already on the Bush bandwagon
underscores the challenge Romney would face in trying to ensure his donor
network remains intact if he runs.

For Romney’s former backers, the news wasn’t a complete surprise. For
weeks, he has been slowly ratcheting up his rhetoric in conversations. But
his decision to informally test the waters came as Bush has dominated media
coverage and donor interest for the last several weeks, including the two
New York-area events. And a number of the attendees, who said they were
invited to a confidential meeting with Romney and were given no heads-up
that he would use the gathering to make a more direct case for himself,
were frustrated to find word of it had leaked.

Bush has been moving to engage the extensive donor network that backed his
father and his brother in their White House campaigns. That means that for
Romney, the window is closing. One source close to Romney said he will
likely decide within the next two months about his next move.

Romney allies and former staffers have spent much of the past two years
lamenting that he should have won in his 2012 campaign against President
Barack Obama. Romney also ran for the White House in 2008, but lost the GOP
nod to Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Just a year ago, in an interview with The New York Times, Romney ruled out
a presidential run in a most emphatic manner: “Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no,
no, no. No, no, no,” he said.

But Romney supporters have argued that there’s a clamor for people who
would like to see someone emerge as a leader for the Republican Party
during a particularly fractious time, and Romney recently began making
clear to donors and supporters that such talk was affecting his thinking.

In addition, Romney told those gathered Friday that his wife, Ann, was now
very encouraging toward his running again, a source said — a change from
her past protests. The couple’s five sons, however, were split on the
notion.

Bush’s decision to move quickly to draw a line in the sand was in part
because of Romney’s overtures to donors. Bush allies had privately grown
frustrated that Romney was freezing some donors who hoped he would launch a
campaign of his own.

Bush announced in December that he is considering a 2016 run, and he has
moved quickly since to set up a leadership PAC, dubbed “The Right to Rise”
to accept donations. A super PAC with the same name has also been set up to
help Bush.

The former Florida governor has repeatedly said he won’t make a stark pitch
to the Republican Party’s more conservative base by bending his positions
to appease voters. He also has lamented that no recent GOP nominee has
tried to avoid taking positions to win over GOP primary voters who are more
conservative, stances that end up turning off general election voters.

Bush and Romney are looking to occupy the center-right establishment lane.
A sprawling array of senators, governors and former officials who appeal to
different segments of the conservative base are also in the GOP’s potential
2016 mix. Among those seriously laying the groundwork for a presidential
campaign are Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ted
Cruz of Texas. Also a possibility is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, would
likely vie for the same center-right support that Romney and Bush would
seek.

Romney drew flak for his overtures to the right in 2012, especially on the
subject of immigration. Bush has criticized the way Romney allowed himself
to be defined negatively by Democrats during that campaign. Democrats at
the time cast Romney, who made a fortune in the financial sector, as a
heartless businessman.

Romney, in turn, has argued privately that Bush, should he run in 2016,
will face some of the same criticism over his own extensive business ties.
Bush has recently taken steps to reduce his private sector links. And Bush
allies privately point out that Romney made his business record as a
private equity executive a centerpiece of his rationale for running,
something the former Florida governor isn’t planning to do.

At Friday’s gathering, there was a consensus among Romney supporters that
he needs to reintroduce himself to the voters, in a complimentary way like
the video aired about him at the GOP convention in 2012. Romney responded
by saying that the damaging portraits of him are now old news and therefore
less harmful.

For Romney, the prospect of another campaign also is a potential boon to
business: Many of his donors are also potential investors in his son Tagg’s
firm, Solamere Capital.

But Romney, whose late father also ran for president, has dreamed of the
White House for years.

His increased interest comes not just as Bush has been trying to seize the
establishment lane, but as Hillary Clinton, the undeclared but overwhelming
Democratic favorite, has seen her approval numbers fall in recent months.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “What the heck is Mitt Romney doing?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/10/what-the-heck-is-mitt-romney-doing/>*

By Chris Cillizza

January 10, 2015, 10:51 a.m. EST

Mitt Romney sent a very clear message to a group of major donors in New
York City on Friday: I'm thinking about running for president in 2016.
Then, as he knew they would, those donors spread that message to every
media outlet in the country.

It's a stunning reversal from public -- and private -- assertions from
Romney and his allies that, after two runs for president in 2008 and 2012,
he was absolutely, 100 percent done with running.

And that reversal begs this question: What the heck is Mitt Romney doing?

Let's start by making clear what he's not doing: Running for president --
at least not yet.

No one -- not even those most bullish on the prospect of Romney, part 3 --
believe that Romney has made up his mind to run.  But, it's clear he is
more interested in the possibility of a race than he was even a few months
ago and wants to preserve the right to make his own decision.

What he sees -- and wants to stop -- is the momentum in the major donor
community toward former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has been the most
aggressive potential candidate in the 2016 field since the 2014 midterms
ended. Bush, according to one report, has set a goal of raising $100
million over the first three months of 2015 in hopes of convincing lots of
other candidates that making the race is a fool's errand.

By making very clear that he's on the fence about another race, Romney
freezes some not-insignificant portion of the Republican major donor base
-- especially in New York and New Jersey. Rather than signing on with Jeb
in the next weeks or months, many of those money men and women will wait to
see what Romney does before doing anything.

So, Romney is really buying himself -- and, whether intentionally or not,
the rest of the potential field -- some time. He's taking the Bush pot off
of boil and turning it down to simmer.

Which then raises this question: Why?

The simplest answer is because a part of Romney would still like to be
president and he doesn't want someone else -- named Jeb Bush -- to
foreclose that possibility for him.

Romney has not been shy -- privately but publicly reported -- that he has
doubts about Bush's ability to win the Republican nomination and the lack
of any other candidate in the GOP field who presents a real challenge to de
facto Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

These two paragraphs from a Politico story by Ben White and Maggie Haberman
back in December are telling:

“[Romney] has said, among other things, that Jeb Bush, the former Florida
governor, would run into problems because of his business dealings, his
work with the investment banks Lehman Brothers and Barclays, and his
private equity investments.

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

While Bush has drawn mostly positive attention for stepping aside from
various corporate and non-profit boards in advance of his likely bid, a
glimpse of the potentially problematic issues Bush will have to navigate as
a result of his work  -- on education policy among other things -- since
leaving the governor's office in 2006 came out this week in a terrific
story by WaPo's Lyndsey Layton.

Writing of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, Layton says:

“The foundation, from which Bush resigned as chairman last week as part of
his preparations for a possible White House bid, has been criticized as a
backdoor vehicle for major corporations to urge state officials to adopt
policies that would enrich the companies.”

To hear the Romney side tell it, his renewed interest in the race is
entirely born from a selfless desire to see the party win back the White
House after eight years in the political wilderness.  While that's likely
part of his reasoning, no politician -- or human -- acts for entirely
selfless reasons. Ever. Romney came close to being president in 2012 and
likely believes that armed with the knowledge he has picked up over his
last two bids he would be able to get to the top of the mountain this time
around.

To me, Romney remains an unlikely 2016 candidate. But, he clearly can't get
the idea out of his head (and his heart) and so wanted to buy himself some
time to make the decision on his own timetable. Mission accomplished.

*Vox: “5 reasons every Republican is running for president”
<http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7522657/republican-2016-primary-romney>*

By Andrew Prokop

January 9, 2015, 7:35 p.m. EST

One early takeaway of the GOP's invisible primary? A whole lot of people
sure look like they're going to run.

On Friday, Mitt Romney told a group of donors that he was considering
another run for president. Minutes later, a new report said Marco Rubio had
gotten approval from his family for a run, and that he wouldn't be scared
away by Jeb Bush's fundraising.

Earlier in the week, Mike Huckabee ended his Fox News show to explore a
bid, Jeb Bush launched a fundraising operation, Scott Walker's hiring of a
likely campaign manager became known, and Chris Christie reportedly decided
to move up his timetable for an announcement. Rick Santorum and Rick Perry
also said they were seriously considering running. Less plausible
candidates like Ben Carson, George Pataki, and Carly Fiorina have
previously signaled their interest.

Now, it's not certain that all of these people will end up running. And
many of those who do could drop out well before the voting begins — there
tends to be a winnowing of the field as some candidates fail to raise
enough money and win support.

But unlike in 2011-2012 — when many potentially strong contenders shied
away from a bid — Republican hopefuls seem to be much more eager to run
this time around. Here are five reasons why.

1) Jeb Bush would make a weak frontrunner

For most of 2014, there wasn't really anyone who could be deemed a
frontrunner in the GOP field. With Christie sidelined by Bridgegate , Rand
Paul still getting a mixed reception from the GOP establishment, Scott
Walker busy with his own reelection, and Marco Rubio damaged by his support
of the Senate immigration bill, there seemed to be a vacuum in the field.

Enter Jeb Bush. With an unexpectedly early announcement of an exploratory
committee and an aggressive fundraising push that Michael Bender and
Jonathan Allen of Bloomberg Politics describe as "shock-and-awe," he's
inarguably made a strong debut and forced the other potential candidates to
move up their timetables for running.

Yet Bush has been out of politics for eight years. His positions on
immigration and education aren't popular with conservatives. And his last
name could prove to be more toxic than GOP elites currently expect — in
general election polling, or even in the primary. As Ben Smith argued, he
might not be in touch with how the GOP has changed since the rise of the
Tea Party — and might stumble on the trail. Bush has even said that a GOP
candidate this year should be willing to "lose the primary to win the
general" — and maybe he will! (The first part, that is.)

2) The eight-year itch

Since Harry Truman's presidency ended, there's only been one time where a
party has held onto the White House for over eight years — the Reagan-Bush
reign of 1981-1992. Democrats and their likely nominee Hillary Clinton
would be attempting to match that rare streak.

But as Brendan Nyhan wrote at the Upshot, voters seem to get tired after
eight or more years of the same party, in what political scientist Alan
Abramowitz calls the "time for a change" effect. More and more voters start
to think that the opposition should get a shot.

We've gotten some good economic news recently, and if that continues, any
GOP candidate will face a tough time winning in 2016. But the economy that
year will matter much more than what's happening now, and we simply don't
know what conditions will be yet. And, of course, Jeb's older brother won
the presidency over Al Gore when the economy was quite strong, and when
President Bill Clinton was much more popular than Obama is now.

3) The 2010 and 2014 elections helped expand the GOP field and embolden the
party

The Obama midterm years have just been amazing for the growth of the
Republican Party, so there are simply more credible contenders to go
around. In 2010, the party elected a host of new governors, senators, and
members of Congress including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker, as
well as other potential candidates like John Kasich. (All but one GOP
governor running again in 2014 won.)

Beyond that, the party was emboldened by its sweeping 2014 wins. With the
takeover of the Senate and most state governments, conservatism seems to be
on the ascendancy, and Democrats in decline. And the news has been
dominated by crises all over the world, further feeding the sense that
Obama has failed. Obviously, the 2010 GOP victories didn't lead to Obama's
defeat in 2012. But many potential candidates feel like they've learned
from Romney's mistakes — including Romney.

4) Non-serious candidates can become more famous by running

Some people run for president because they think they can win. Others run
because it's an easy way to get the press — and your party's base voters —
to pay attention to you. This is particularly true in our modern era of
many televised debates and intense media coverage, and in 2011-2012
unlikely candidates like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and
Rick Santorum all had their moments in the sun. A no-hope candidate can use
this brief spotlight to push some preferred policy ideas, as Ron Paul did.
He or she can also have more mercenary motivations — for instance, hoping
that newfound fame will lead to a lucrative book deal or media gig.

5) They can all position themselves as an alternative to Hillary Clinton

The funny thing about Hillary Clinton being the overwhelming favorite for
the Democratic nomination is that practically any Republican can contrast
himself or herself to her.

If you're a young and new candidate, you can point to Obama's defeat of
Clinton in 2008, and argue you could do the same as the candidate of
change. Why would the GOP choose a candidate of the past when they could be
the party of the future?

Alternatively, if you're an older, better-known candidate, you could make
the case that Clinton is a formidable opponent, and that the GOP needs
someone experienced and tested to take her on. If you're from a political
dynasty, you can even argue that that won't hurt too much in the general
election, since Clinton is too (sort of).

In the view of many, Clinton's past year showed off many of her weaknesses,
and made clear that she's vulnerable. We'll see how that plays out — but
for now, it's an argument for any Republican to jump in the race.

*Slate: “The Warren Commission”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/elizabeth_warren_does_well_in_peter_hart_focus_group_voters_not_excited.html>*

By John Dickerson

January 9, 2015, 5:32 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] In a new focus group, voters agreed about one thing: Elizabeth
Warren is one of the most intriguing contenders for 2016.

When 12 voters gathered in Aurora, Colorado, for a political focus group on
Thursday night, it wasn’t surprising to hear them compete to see who could
bash politicians more. “If we got rid of every member of Congress and
elected new people tomorrow who had no experience, I don’t think we could
do any worse,” said Charlie Loan, who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. When
the group was asked to come up with phrases members of Congress should wear
on wrist bracelets, they suggested “Don’t trust me, I lie,” “Looking out
for me,” and “Two Faced.”

But one politician escaped the voters’ ire: Elizabeth Warren. Six of the 12
said they would like to have Warren over to their house to talk, more than
any other possible 2016 presidential contender they were asked about. They
said she was “down to earth” and “knowledgeable.” When asked a separate
question about which politician they would like to have live next door,
they picked Warren over every other contender as well. Jenny Howard, an
accountant with student-loan debt who voted for Romney in 2012 and Sen.
John McCain in 2008, also liked Warren: “If she ran, she could be the next
president because she is personable and knowledgeable and has a good handle
on what’s going on in the country.”

Peter Hart organized this Colorado focus group. Hart, a Democratic pollster
for more than 40 years, helps conduct the Wall Street Journal/ NBC poll and
has been holding these kinds of sessions for the past four presidential
elections.  The focus group was the first of a series of such two-hour
interviews of swing voters that Hart will do leading up to the 2016
presidential election, for the Annenberg Public Policy Center to track how
voter sentiment changes.

These people do not represent metaphysical certitude about the country’s
political opinion—it’s only 12 people after all—and we are still far from
the next election so much can change, but they offer glimpses of the
current stirring in the public. Their desire for change, concerns about the
economy (despite news that things are better), and interest in a candidate
who cares about the middle class have appeared consistently in polls and
other voter forums.

The affection for Warren among the group of five self-described
independents, three Republicans, and four Democrats may not tell us
anything about the Massachusetts senator herself. It’s possible that she is
a vehicle through which they are signaling their desire for change, for
something authentic and maybe new. Charlie Loan, an IT manager, says he
voted the straight conservative line most recent election but he’d listen
to what Warren had to say. “The little I have seen and heard from her, she
seems genuine—people from [Oklahoma] usually are. Since she was formerly
devoted to the Republican Party, maybe she fits in the middle somewhere,
which is where I would like to see most of them be. She is clearly
well-educated and seems level-headed.”

If Warren is a possible vessel for change, so too is Sen. Rand Paul, who
several of the conservatives found intriguing. (Sen. Ted Cruz wasn’t
mentioned, even though he, like Paul and Warren, is also trying to position
himself as an outsider on the inside.) Paul had a bit of the crossover
appeal that Warren had. “He’s a reasonable choice,” said Andrew Regan, who
described himself as a strong Democrat. “I would consider him, but I don’t
know who the Democratic nominee is going to be.” Regan was emblematic of
the strong desire for something new. Despite his ideological affiliations,
he was happy to see Republicans in control of Congress. “I’m happy to see
that Republicans took Congress. Instead of a ‘Do Nothing’ congress we have
a ‘Do Something’ Congress.”

Once a Democratic nominee is chosen, it’s almost certain that Regan, a
self-employed beekeeper, will vote as he always has. That’s what voters
usually do. The same is true with conservatives who express an openness for
Warren. But Warren’s authenticity, anti-corporate message, and outsider
status all reflect the desire for change that came across so clearly from
most of the participants.

The 2016 contenders who didn’t fare well are also two of its marquee names:
Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Six of the 12 said they would back a law to
bar all Bushes and Clintons from running. “He’s running off the Bush name
and thinks that’s something,” said Howard. In a free-association exercise,
the words people used to describe Bush included:  “joke,” “no thank you,”
“clown,” “interesting,” “don’t need him,” “intriguing,” “greedy,” and “bad
scene.” (By contrast, Paul was described as “entertaining,” “interesting,”
“very intriguing,” “honest,” and “freedom.”) Mention of Hillary Clinton
conjured “hopeful,” “crazy,” “strong,” “spitfire,” “don’t like her,”
“untrustworthy,” “more of the same,” and “next candidate, please.” Although
the antipathy toward Bush and Clinton was often specific, it also could be
read as a broad dislike of American politics today.

Not surprisingly, the economy was the issue everyone was most concerned
about. Jobs numbers were solid again on Friday and the unemployment rate is
at 5.6 percent (lower than Mitt Romney said it would be under his
administration by the year 2017), but the good numbers didn’t do anything
to assuage the participants’ worries. Though they said lower gas prices
have helped, most were skeptical things were genuinely getting better.

“It’s nice to have the extra money,” said Susan Brink, a 56-year-old
independent who voted for Barack Obama. “But I do kind of feel like they
give us a little bit to make us happy, and then they take it away.” Rick
Lamutt, a right-leaning independent who works as “a cable guy,” said that
despite the good numbers, he sees the truth of the real economy in all the
houses he visits where family members are moving in together and struggling
to make do. “The simple fact is, regardless of what the numbers say,
there’s a lot of hurting people out there,” he said. “You’ve seen on the
news, ‘Everything’s fine, the economy’s great, there’s jobs everywhere!’
Well, if you want to make $9 an hour, you can go get a job, but if you want
to make a wage that can support your family, good luck.”

This pervasive feeling of economic insecurity drove what these voters are
looking for in candidates, too. Kimberly Tyler, a 61-year-old veterinarian,
wanted a candidate who understood the pinch of the middle-class lifestyle.
“Most in politics have money and it’s a money game for them and they don’t
relate to the middle class, and everyone in the middle class is hanging on
by their fingernails.”

There’s a long road before the election and while these views give us some
idea of the mood, it’s important to keep in mind that even these voters are
a long way off from drawing any real conclusions about specific candidates.
Hart asked everyone to place themselves at a racetrack that showed how far
along they were in their thinking about the next presidential contest. Most
said they were in the parking lot. One woman said she was in her car taking
allergy medicine—she said she was allergic to both horses and politicians.
When asked whom she’d like to see in the race, she replied, “Superman.” But
he hasn’t even formed a leadership PAC yet.

*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>)