Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday January 14, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 07:49:53 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday January 14, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The Hill: “Clinton’s confidence in an Iowa win grows”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/229440-clintons-confidence-in-an-iowa-win-grows>*

“A year before the Iowa caucuses, confidence is building among Hillary
Clinton allies that she’ll be able to win the first-in-the-nation
presidential contest.”

*CNN: “Can Hillary Clinton step out of Bill's NAFTA shadow?”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/14/politics/hillary-clinton-trade/index.html>*

“Labor unions and liberal activists are preparing to highlight free trade —
an issue central to Bill and Hillary Clinton's political brand in the early
1990s — if she opts to run for president in 2016.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Castro fuels Hillary VP speculation”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/229355-castro-fuels-hillary-vp-speculation>*

“Castro, who has just marked five months as HUD secretary, was all smiles
during an appearance at the National Press Club when asked if he'd like to
be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's running mate.”

*The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Clinton’s Paris blunder”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/229425-clintons-paris-blunder>*

“The minute that she heard about the march against terrorism in Paris,
Hillary Clinton should have hopped on one of her Wall Street friends’
private jets and rushed to France.”

*Washington Post blog: Plum Line: “Elizabeth Warren shuts door on
presidential run. Draft Warren groups kick it back open.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-shuts-door-on-presidential-run-draft-warren-groups-kick-it-back-open/>*

“The idea is that all of this can only help boost Warren’s visibility,
which also boosts her influence within Congress, and over the Democratic
Party, as a vehicle for the brand of feisty economic progressivism these
groups support.”

*BuzzFeed: “Draft Elizabeth Warren Campaign Forges On To New Hampshire”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/draft-elizabeth-warren-campaign-forges-on-to-new-h#.ouOEE0w4e>*

[Subtitle:] “The groups behind the draft effort dismiss a new interview in
which Warren says she will not run for president. Run Warren Run launches
in New Hampshire.”

*The Atlantic: David Frum: “Run, Warren, Run”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/run-warren-run/384490/>*

[Subtitle:] “Elizabeth Warren can run for president. She should run for
president. And despite her denials, she probably will.”

(Frum is a Republican and was speechwriter to George W. Bush)

*CNN: “Sanders watches as the Left looks to Warren”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-liberals-organizing-elsewhere/index.html>*

“He isn't a registered Democrat, but would be vying for the party's
presidential nomination.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “A list of the many 2016 contenders Rand
Paul has (already) fought with”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/13/rand-paul-pit-bull/>*

“Hillary Rodham Clinton: He called her a 'war hawk' and kinda, sorta
suggested she might be too old to run for president. He also suggested Bill
Clinton's affair with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, amounted to a male
superior abusing his power over a woman in the workplace.”

*Articles:*

*The Hill: “Clinton’s confidence in an Iowa win grows”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/229440-clintons-confidence-in-an-iowa-win-grows>*

By Amie Parnes

January 14, 2015, 6:00 a.m. EST

A year before the Iowa caucuses, confidence is building among Hillary
Clinton allies that she’ll be able to win the first-in-the-nation
presidential contest.

Clinton finished a disappointing third in 2008, but Clinton World is
emboldened because no one like then-Sen. Barack Obama has emerged as a
possible rival this time around.

“There is no Barack Obama looming and ready to suit up and come in that I
know of,” said Jerry Crawford, who was the 2008 co-chair for the Clinton
campaign in Iowa and is currently assisting Ready for Hillary’s effort in
the Hawkeye State. “That’s a fundamentally different lay of the land.”

Crawford’s comments point to the confidence in Clinton’s camp that the
most-like-Obama potential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), will
not get in the race, despite a continued push for her to do so from the
left.

On Tuesday, when asked by Fortune magazine if she would run for president,
Warren simply said, “No.”

Regardless of Warren, Clinton allies aren’t taking any chances in Iowa.

Ready for Hillary, the super-PAC pushing Clinton to make a second bid for
the White House, has devoted a significant amount of resources in the
state, including direct financial contributions totaling more than $121,000
to local candidates and the Iowa Democratic Party. Officials say they have
two staffers based in the state and have organized on the grassroots level
in all 99 counties.

The super-PAC has logged quality time at 10 college campuses in Iowa to
court young voters and launched its nationwide bus tour in the state.

A new Democratic Party chairman also will soon be in place in the state,
and a Clinton friend, Andy McGuire, is in the running for the top spot,
which will be decided in a Saturday election.

A Bloomberg Iowa poll in October found the former secretary of State
received support from 76 percent of Democrats who planned to participate in
the caucus, a sign to Crawford and others that Clinton is right where she
wants to be.

“What she needs to do is come to Iowa and use it to get very connected at
the retail level, which will be good for her in Iowa and nationally, as
well,” Crawford said. “Are there some activists who want another option? Of
course there are. That will always be the case. But I’m not particularly
concerned.”

Even the GOP says Iowa is Clinton’s to lose, at least for now. The
difference, perhaps, is that they think she still could lose it.

“She’s her own worst enemy,” said Craig Robinson, the founder and editor of
The Iowa Republican and the director of the state’s Republican Party in
2007.

Clinton avoided appearing in the state after 2008 but returned for a couple
of visits in the fall — first at former Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) Steak
Fry event and later to campaign for Bruce Braley, the former congressman
who lost a race for the Senate.

Robinson suggested that Clinton should spend time “building excitement,”
which he credited for Obama’s 2008 victory.

“You have to build connections with people,” he said. “I think we expect
it. What we’re looking for is repeated exposure to these candidates, so
they can get a sense of who these people are at their core. That’s where
Bill [Clinton] succeeds and she doesn’t.”

Some observers pointed to September’s Steak Fry, where a casually dressed
Bill Clinton worked the rope lines with ease. Hillary Clinton, who was more
buttoned-up, seemed a little less comfortable in that role, the observers
noted.

But she is working hard to become a retail politician in her own right.

Last month, she sent Rep. David Loebsack, the lone Democrat in the Iowa
delegation, a handwritten note for his birthday, a classic Clintonian move.
(After the 2008 election, she sent 16,000 thank you notes to supporters;
5,000 of them were handwritten.)

The note meant a lot to Loebsack who said in an interview with The Hill
that, if she does in fact run, it’s “pretty clear she is the most qualified
person in the race.”

He advised that Clinton hit the state shortly after she makes a decision
and meet people one-on-one in their homes and businesses.

Hawkeye State residents, he said, love that “face-to-face contact.”

And as for that handwritten note, that kind of personal touch, he added,
“is important to Iowans.”

*CNN: “Can Hillary Clinton step out of Bill's NAFTA shadow?”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/14/politics/hillary-clinton-trade/index.html>*

By Dan Merica and Eric Bradner

January 14, 2015

Two decades later, Hillary Clinton is still haunted by the ghosts of NAFTA.

Labor unions and liberal activists are preparing to highlight free trade —
an issue central to Bill and Hillary Clinton's political brand in the early
1990s — if she opts to run for president in 2016.

Driving their anger: The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive new pact that
that would usurp the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement's
place as the biggest-ever free trade agreement. President Barack Obama's
administration has been negotiating the Chile-to-Japan deal for years, and
it's increasingly drawing scrutiny from the Democratic base as the talks
near completion.

The new deal has reminded labor halls across the country of the old one —
and that it was their biggest problem with the Clintons.

Compounding the problem is that free trade, particularly NAFTA, is an issue
that Clinton has vacillated on since her husband's administration.

As first lady, Clinton backed NAFTA and spoke highly of it at stops for the
administration. But once she was elected to the Senate and later ran for
president, her support of free trade -- and her husband's landmark
agreement -- began to wane. On the campaign trail, Clinton acknowledged
that NAFTA has "hurt a lot of American workers" and advocated for broad
reform of trade policy. President Barack Obama's campaign even used the
flip-flop against Clinton during the 2008 primary.

But after Clinton lost the nomination and agreed to serve as the
President's Secretary of State, she began to warm up to free trade, and
particularly the TPP.

In her memoir, which Clinton's spokesman said was her most updated
statement on the TPP, Clinton wrote, "It's safe to say that the TPP won't
be perfect. No deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be - but
its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American
businesses and workers."

That history worries some labor leaders who are prepared to hold Clinton to
a standard that includes her support of free trade agreements.

Hillary Clinton: Dodging tough questions should be 'disqualifying' in Iowa

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told CNN the issue of free trade could
hang over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont says
he'll make it a centerpiece of his campaign if he runs for president.

And union workers across the country - including some who lined up to see
Clinton speak at a labor hall in 2014 - are talking about it, too.

"I think NAFTA itself will be remembered for as long as this generation
draws a warm breath," Richard Trumka said in an interview. "When I talk to
people about it, they don't remember that it was a Republican majority that
passed NAFTA. They remember that it was President Clinton."

Labor leaders see Clinton's 1994 signing of NAFTA, which created a
free-trade zone with Canada and Mexico, as the moment when blue collar
wages began to stagnate.

Trumka said that free trade -- especially the TPP -- is one of the biggest
priorities for the AFL-CIO and something that the group will use to gauge
their support of candidates in 2015 and 2016. The issue is part of the
group's "Raising Wages" priority plan which looks to raise the wages of all
Americans.

The longtime labor leader, whose relationship with the Clintons goes back
decades, said it was up to Hillary Clinton whether the legacy of NAFTA will
hurt her campaign.

"It all depends on what her position is on trade. If her position on trade
is that NAFTA is really a good thing and I want to continue it, it will
definitely hurt her," he said. "All politicians, Democrats and Republicans,
take about raising wages. But you can't be for raising wages while being
for the same old trade policies."

That's where the Trans-Pacific Partnership — which liberal activists have
taken to calling "NAFTA on steroids" — comes in.

It isn't only Trumka, though, that will likely apply pressure on Clinton
regarding free trade. Two outspoken liberal senators -- both of whom have
been followed by 2016 speculation -- have come out strong against the TPP.

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, came out against the
TPP earlier in 2014 and recently wrote a letter that accused the White
House of crafting the deal in secret.

In an interview, the outspoken senator that while the concept of trade "is
a good idea," trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP have been raw deals for
American workers.

"It was very clear to me that any agreement that forces American workers to
compete against desperate, desperate people who are working for pennies an
hour is grotesquely unfair," Sanders said, recalling the 1990s when he
traveled to Mexico to see the working and living conditions of workers
producing goods sold in the U.S.

Unlike some labor and liberal leaders, Sanders does not hang NAFTA on
Hillary Clinton. "Hillary Clinton was not the president. Bill Clinton was
the president," he said. "Hillary will have to speak to her own views on
trade."

That said, though, Sanders has brought free trade up on every trip he has
made to Iowa -- the first-in-the-nation caucus state -- and when asked
whether he would make the issue a key part of his possible presidential run
he bluntly said: "I will give you a three letter answer to that - the
answer is y-e-s."

Why many liberals don't trust Hillary Clinton

Joining Sanders is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who told an AFL-CIO audience
recently that liberals "believe in trade policies and tax codes that will
strengthen our economy, that will raise our standard of living, that will
create American jobs because we will never give up on these three words:
made in America."

Warren has also written a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman
questioning the deal.

The fact that Warren and Sanders are involved means this issue is not going
away, especially for Clinton. Both represent the former first lady's left
flank and are politicians who don't even need to run for president to
dictate some of the issues that become big campaign issues.

Clinton is a moving target on NAFTA

Bill Clinton still defends NAFTA as a good deal for America. Just last
November, at the 10th anniversary of the Clinton Library, the former
President said, "NAFTA is still controversial but people will thank me for
it in 20 years."

Hillary Clinton has waffled on the issue, though.

As first lady, Clinton backed NAFTA.

"I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade," she said
during a meeting with union workers in 1996, "and I think that NAFTA is
proving its worth." In her 2003 memoir, "Living History," Clinton also
writes glowingly about NAFTA, including it among her husband's "legislative
victories" and noting it would "expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure
that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of
globalization."

But when she entered the Senate in 2000 and ran for president in 2008,
Clinton's tune on free trade began to change. She conducted a study as
senator that found the agreement hurt New York workers' ability to sell
goods in Canada and spoke out against NAFTA during her 2008 campaign.

"NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American
workers," Clinton said at a 2007 forum with the AFL-CIO. "Clearly we have
to have a broad reform in how we approach trade. NAFTA's a piece of it, but
it's not the only piece of it."

Clinton lost her race for president, though, and went on to serve as Barack
Obama's secretary of state. In the role, she oversaw the President's much
noted pivot to Asia. At the center of that move was the TPP.

"One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed
new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would
link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers
while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual
property," Clinton wrote in her 2014 memoir "Hard Choices."

As secretary of state, Clinton also talked up the benefits of the TPP and
during a trip to Korea in 2011, she advocated for "as few barriers to trade
and investment as possible."

When asked for Clinton's current position on free trade and the TPP, a
spokesman pointed CNN to what the former secretary of state wrote in her
book.

Iowans 'absolutely sure' Hillary Clinton is running

Republicans have picked up on the problem for Clinton and have started to
point out her changes in opinion. Before Clinton went to Michigan last year
to endorse candidates, America Rising PAC, an anti-Clinton communication
and research group, questioned Clinton's "phony populism on free trade."

"A peculiar thing happens every time Hillary Clinton decides to run for
President," the group said in a blog post. "Her views on free trade start
sliding left and she calls for a 'time out' on free trade agreements."

These Republican attacks - and more likely to come - show the political
problem Clinton faces. If she runs for President, she will either have to
woo labor and liberal leaders by blasting agreements like TPP and NAFTA and
risk looking like she is backtracking on her State Department years. Or she
can embrace deals that she made at State and risk what has become eager
liberal anger.

TPP likely to be left for next president

For all the comparisons, though, the TPP would actually be a much different
-- and more comprehensive -- trade deal than NAFTA was.

Older pacts have mostly dealt with moving goods into and out of countries.
But in the 12-country Pacific Rim deal, U.S. negotiators are pushing for
rules that would help companies -- especially pharmaceutical drug-makers --
extend their patents and copyrights for much longer periods, keeping
generic medicines off poorer foreign countries' markets.

They're working to create a tribunal that would give corporations a venue
to challenge whether governments' rules and regulations are in line with
their obligations under the trade deal.

And they're crafting chapters on environmental protections, labor rights
and the digital economy. They're trying to prevent countries from
restricting where data servers can be located, or what data companies can
move across international borders.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, like NAFTA, includes Canada and Mexico. But
the deal's real pearl is Japan -- a potentially huge market for U.S. food,
natural gas and more. It's a wealthy economy that American businesses
haven't been able to crack.

But Japan is bogged down by its own political challenges. The country's
agricultural interests are especially influential in its legislature, and
they've resisted opening their ports to American rice, beef, pork and wheat
-- which, in turn, has infuriated U.S. farmers. For more than a year, it's
been a huge sticking point that has delayed progress on the deal.

That's why the Trans-Pacific Partnership debate isn't going away.

Trade agreements take years to come together. Even after the presidents and
prime ministers announce they've struck a deal, the wording must be
scrubbed and translated into each country's language -- a process that
takes months. Then legislatures, where anger about their lack of a role in
the negotiations has often simmered for years, might insist on changes.
Different countries' elections and changing political tides can complicate
things even more.

For some senators, the minority will be more fun

The best-case scenario for Obama is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership
could be approved by Congress at the very end of his presidency.

And that's if a deal can be struck soon -- which is unlikely. Negotiators
already blew their goal of reaching an agreement in 2012. Then they missed
their own deadline in 2013. And again in 2014.

Much more likely is that the next president will have decisions to make
about whether and how to finalize the negotiations -- or, at least, whether
to sign the deal.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Castro fuels Hillary VP speculation”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/229355-castro-fuels-hillary-vp-speculation>*

By Kevin Cirilli

January 13, 2015, 1:28 p.m. EST

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary Julian Castro fueled rumors
during a forum in Washington on Tuesday that he is on the short-list to be
the vice presidential nominee for Democrats in 2016.

Castro, who has just marked five months as HUD secretary, was all smiles
during an appearance at the National Press Club when asked if he'd like to
be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's running mate.

"We'll see what happens," Castro said when asked point blank if he'd be
interested in becoming a vice presidential pick or running for Texas
governor. "There's no grand plan."

The former Democratic mayor of San Antonio, Castro said that he's "very
mindful that when January 20 comes around there are two years left" in
President Obama's second term in office.

The Hispanic politician has long been considered a rising star within
Democratic political circles since his keynote speech at the 2012
Democratic National Convention. His twin brother, Rep. Joaquin Castro
(D-Texas), is also seen as another lawmaker to watch.

"I'm trying to do a great job at HUD," Castro said. "I believe that
anything that you do in life... the number one way of being satisfied
personally and also to have a great  future — whatever that future is — is
to just do a fantastic job with what's in front of you because if you don't
do that, you can kiss any of that future goodbye. So I'm just trying to do
a good job with what's in front of me."

He stopped short of endorsing Clinton for president. She has yet to declare
an official candidacy but is widely expected to run and has a formidable
lead in early polling.

"Secretary of State Clinton is obviously an extremely talented person who
has made fantastic contributions to our national progress over the last
couple of decades," he said. "I’m staying out of those politics in this
role but I know that she did a great job as secretary of State and I’m
confident that if she is elected president she would do enormous good for
the country as well."

During his prepared policy remarks, Castro touted the administration's
recent announcement that it was slashing government fees on
federally-backed mortgages to make it easier for lower-income American to
receive home financing.

Some conservatives have raised concerns that such a policy will lead to
faulty home loans to Americans who can't afford houses, similar to the
issue that led to the 2008 financial crisis.

"If anything, the underwriting standards are too strict," Castro said,
refuting conservative critics. "We went from one extreme where it was too
easy to get a home loan [before the crisis] to another extreme where it was
too difficult... We want to find a strong middle ground."

He said he was unsure if the new Congress and the administration would be
able to take up housing finance reform. He reiterated his thoughts that
housing finance reform would likely include the removal of taxpayer-backed
mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"Folks along the ideological spectrum and partisan spectrum believe that
there is a better way out there [than Fannie and Freddie]," he said. "[We
can have] a government backstop but do it in a manner that doesn't leave
taxpayers on the hook the way they were a few years ago."

*The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Clinton’s Paris blunder”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/229425-clintons-paris-blunder>*

By Dick Morris

January 13, 2015, 7:49 p.m. EST

The minute that she heard about the march against terrorism in Paris,
Hillary Clinton should have hopped on one of her Wall Street friends’
private jets and rushed to France.

Think of the photo op and its political meaning. The former secretary of
State and, perhaps, future president of the United States marching arm in
arm with world leaders to protest the vicious attacks in the city of light.
Not President Obama. Not Secretary of State John Kerry. Not Vice President
Biden. But Clinton — on her own.

Her presence would have made her the star of the show, particularly once it
became apparent she was there as a private citizen, not at the instruction
— and without the approval — of the president. It would have marked her
debut in a new role on the world stage. The optics of her marching in
solidarity with the victims of terror would have been a defining one for
her candidacy.

Without differing from Obama on hard issues of policy and without staking
out hawkish ground in the third Iraq War, Clinton would have sent a clear
message to the world, saying “I am tough on terror.”

Many, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have traced the rise of the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria to Obama’s (and Clinton’s) failure to leave
a residual garrison of troops in Iraq after our withdrawal there. This
accusation makes Clinton vulnerable on the terrorism issue. What better way
to put that liability behind her than to show up while her much-criticized
former boss stayed home?

Female candidates for president are always being questioned on their
capacity to be adequate commanders in chief. Recognizing this danger,
Clinton alertly secured a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee right
after 9/11. This realization likely led to her vote for the Iraq War and
her continued support of the conflict right up to the primaries of 2008.

Paris was a chance for Clinton to show toughness without alienating the
left. A way to demonstrate that she would go the extra mile — literally —
to fight terror that would not get her in trouble with her party’s liberal
wing.

And she blew it.

The question is, why didn’t she go?

The most likely explanation is that she didn’t really think it through.
Political inertia may have set in. She needed to be acted on by an outside
force.

What about Bill Clinton? We know that he would have gone to Paris in a
heartbeat were he still president. But he was in LA with his Hollywood
pals. There are reports that he’s in the dog house after stories of his
dalliances with Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, Hillary Clinton may be giving him
the silent treatment, as is her wont when she gets angry over his
indiscretions.

Without her husband, Hillary Clinton is a bureaucratic thinker. Surrounded
only by her old State Department cronies, all wedded to the status quo of
American diplomacy and unwilling to violate protocol by upstaging the
president, there is no thinking outside the box. The fact is that none of
her advisers, with the exception of Bill Clinton, had the heft to get her
to reconsider her plans and take a detour to Paris. There is nobody on her
staff with that kind of clout or independence of thought. Hillary Clinton
is so burdened down with insider staff and stuff, she can’t move with
dexterity. She is not nimble any more.

And then there was the Obama problem. Reluctant to break with the president
and used to the habit of obedience and playing with the team, Clinton
didn’t dare strike out on her own. She acted like she was still subject to
his discipline. If she is to run for president, she’d better get over it.

What an opportunity she missed! And what a flaw in her thinking and
staffing it reveals!

*Washington Post blog: Plum Line: “Elizabeth Warren shuts door on
presidential run. Draft Warren groups kick it back open.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-shuts-door-on-presidential-run-draft-warren-groups-kick-it-back-open/>*

By Greg Sargent

January 13, 2015, 3:06 p.m. EST

As I noted the other day, the folks who are urging Elizabeth Warren to run
for president are paying very close attention to her use of verbal tenses.
Warren has frequently cast her denials of an intention to run in the
present tense — I am not running, she has said, without ruling out a run in
the future — which the Draft Warren movement has taken as a reason to
continue pressing her to do just that.

There is a motive behind this whole dance, and it is why the Draft Warren
movement will continue pretty much no matter what Warren says. But more on
that in a sec.

First, note that Warren, in a new interview with Forbes magazine, has now
said she will not run:

QUESTION: So are you going to run for President?

ELIZABETH WARREN: No.

A spokesman for one of the groups leading the Draft Warren movement
recently told me that if Warren closed the door on a future run, “it would
end the draft effort.”

And yet, groups driving the Draft Warren effort, it turns out, are only
going to continue, even in the face of Warren’s latest. Here’s a statement
from Democracy for America and MoveOn:

“We understand that reporters are required to follow every twist and turn
of the 2016 race, but let’s be clear: This isn’t a new position for Senator
Elizabeth Warren.  Senator Warren has been clear for years that she isn’t
planning on running.  If she were running, there wouldn’t be a need for a
draft effort.  We launched the Run Warren Run campaign to show Senator
Elizabeth Warren the tremendous amount of grassroots enthusiasm and
momentum that exists for her entering the 2016 presidential race and to
encourage her to change her mind.”

Meanwhile, Alex Seitz-Wald reports that the Draft Warren effort is pressing
ahead in New Hampshire and Iowa.

The endless intention lavished on every grammatical iteration of Warren’s
denials may seem absurd. But the mere fact that each one of them makes news
— as the latest one is now doing — basically ensures that this will only
continue.

That’s because, while the primary goal of the Draft Warren movement is
obviously to persuade her to run, the secondary goal is also important. The
idea is that all of this can only help boost Warren’s visibility, which
also boosts her influence within Congress, and over the Democratic Party,
as a vehicle for the brand of feisty economic progressivism these groups
support. And that, potentially, boosts their influence, or at least the
influence of their agenda.

From the point of view of these groups, recent events only vindicate their
strategy. Antonio Weiss — a top target of Warren due to his Wall Street
connections — has withdrawn from consideration for a top post at the
Treasury Department, amid headlines declaring a Warren victory.
Progressives lost a round when the measure she opposed that undermines Wall
Street reform was included in the big budget deal, but thanks to Warren,
the issue probably earned a far higher profile than it might otherwise
have. And Draft-Warren officials noted with satisfaction the news accounts
that claimed front-runner Hillary Clinton is carefully tailoring her
economic message with an eye on the Massachusetts Senator.

As David Dayen details, there is a reason Warren’s brand of populism is
ascendant in the Democratic Party: She is articulating a coherent,
interlocking set of ideas focused on the economic prospects of the middle
class, and a broader critique that explains how and why the economy got to
this point, with more passion and specificity than anyone else. There is no
reason why these groups would stand down from feeding the dream of a Warren
presidential run, as long as the mere possibility continues to generate
media attention — no matter how far-fetched that possibility appears, and
no matter what Warren herself says about it.

*BuzzFeed: “Draft Elizabeth Warren Campaign Forges On To New Hampshire”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/draft-elizabeth-warren-campaign-forges-on-to-new-h#.ouOEE0w4e>*

By Ruby Cramer

January 13, 2015, 2:49 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The groups behind the draft effort dismiss a new interview in
which Warren says she will not run for president. Run Warren Run launches
in New Hampshire.

The effort to draft Elizabeth Warren into the next presidential campaign —
a race she has denied interest in nearly 50 times now — continues on this
weekend to New Hampshire, the state that historically holds the election’s
first primary.

MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, partners in the national Run Warren
Run draft that launched last month, will host a second “kick off” event in
Manchester this Saturday. Their first was in Iowa last month, the week they
launched what some Democrats eye as an ill-fated attempt to get Warren in
the race.

Both groups expect their local New Hampshire members to attend the event at
the Riverside Room, a space with standing room for about 150 people. Their
Des Moines drew a crowd of about 75 attendees, including reporters and
operatives.

Warren, the senior senator from Massachusetts and an avatar of Democratic
Party’s progressive flank, has disavowed other efforts to draft her as a
candidate.

When another a super PAC called Ready for Warren launched last summer,
Warren’s lawyer issued a response disavowing the group. The senator, her
lawyer stressed, “has publicly announced that she is not running for
president in 2016.”

The progressives supporting MoveOn and Democracy for America’s draft
campaign are still hoping her mind can be changed: They often point out
that Warren has repeatedly used the present tense, not future, when ruling
out 2016.

A spokesperson for Democracy for America, Neil Sroka, told the Washington
Post last month that any denial in the future tense would be enough to
close the door completely on the possibility of a White House bid — and
enough to end Run Warren Run. “The way this speculation will end is if she
says, ‘I am not running and I will not run,’” Sroka said at the time. “That
would end the draft effort.”

On Tuesday, as the groups rolled out the details of their New Hampshire
event, Fortune published a Warren interview that seemed to promise the
closest thing yet to the “Shermanesque statement” the groups say they need.

“So are you going to run for president?” Warren was asked.

“No,” she replied.

MoveOn and Democracy for America waved off the comment as nothing new.

“We understand that reporters are required to follow every twist and turn
of the 2016 race, but let’s be clear: This isn’t a new position for Sen.
Elizabeth Warren,” a joint statement from the groups read. “Warren has been
clear for years that she isn’t planning on running. If she were running,
there wouldn’t be a need for a draft effort.

“We launched the Run Warren Run campaign to show [her] the tremendous
amount of grassroots enthusiasm and momentum that exists for her entering
the 2016 presidential race and to encourage her to change her mind.”

MoveOn, the country’s largest progressive group, started the draft campaign
after polling its 8 million members. Officials have said the online
organization will invest a minimum of $1 million into the campaign.
Democracy for America, another liberal group, has said it will contribute
an additional $250,000. MoveOn also has plans to hire organizers on the
ground in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Between MoveOn and Democracy for America, more than 241,000 people have
signed the petition to draft Warren into the presidential race. (Nick
Berning, a spokesperson with MoveOn, said that figure is a “de-duped
number,” meaning supporters who have signed up through both groups are not
counted twice.)

A spokesperson for Warren did not reply to a request for comment.

*The Atlantic: David Frum: “Run, Warren, Run”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/run-warren-run/384490/>*

By David Frum

January 13 2015, 5:09 p.m. EDT

(Frum is a Republican and was speechwriter to George W. Bush)

[Subtitle:] Elizabeth Warren can run for president. She should run for
president. And despite her denials, she probably will.

Elizabeth Warren today told Fortune magazine that she won’t run for
president. If Warren stands by that decision, she’ll do a tremendous
disservice to her principles and her party.

Warren is the only person standing between the Democrats and an uncontested
Hillary Clinton nomination. She has already made clear what she thinks of
the Clintons.

Warren has suggested that President Bill Clinton’s administration served
the same “trickle down” economics as its Republicans and predecessors.

Warren has denounced the Clinton administration's senior economic
appointees as servitors of the big banks.

Warren has blasted Bill Clinton’s 1996 claim that the era of big government
is over and his repeal of Glass-Steagall and other financial regulations.

Warren has characterized Hillary Clinton herself as a conscienceless
politician who betrayed her professed principles for campaign donations.

When Warren said these things, political observers insisted that she was
merely exercising her vocal chords, raising a flag indifferent to whether
anybody saluted. Jill Lawrence expressed this view concisely in a Politico
profile last week: "[Warren] remains vastly influential as long as she
retains her unique role in the national conversation. But if she actually
were to run, all that would change.”

But really: What kind of a role does a junior senator from the minority
party actually play? Yes, she just stopped a third-tier Treasury
nomination. Congratulations. She can’t stop two. She certainly can’t enact
laws. She cannot (as she painfully discovered during the December CROmnibus
debate) stop Republicans from unraveling Dodd-Frank stitch by stitch. Once
the presidential contest begins in earnest, she’ll be pressured to join the
cheering squad for the achievements of the Larry Summers-Bob Rubin
years—and to keep silent as Hillary Clinton raises hundreds of millions of
dollars from Wall Street Democrats.

And if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, what role for Warren then? President
Clinton will face Republican majorities in both House and Senate. Like her
husband in the 1990s, she’ll have to do business with them—and squash any
Democrat who objects. If Hillary Clinton loses in 2016, Warren’s role in
the Senate will quickly be eclipsed by the next generation of Democrats
competing for their chance in 2020. By then, Warren will be nearly 70,
older than most presidential candidates, even in our geriatric political
era.

On the other hand, you know who plays a truly significant role in the
national conversation? First-tier candidates for president, that’s who.
Hillary Clinton understood that truth when she ran for president as a not
very senior senator in 2008. Yet when Hillary ran that first time, she
didn’t have much to contribute to the conversation. She ran, as the saying
goes, because she wanted to be something, not because she wanted to do
something. Warren plainly does want to do things—and is denying herself her
best chance to get them done.

If Elizabeth Warren did seek the Democratic presidential nomination, she’d
seize the party and the national agenda. Rank-and-file Democrats seethe
with concern about stagnant wages, income inequality, and the malefactions
of great wealth.

Left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton will talk about none of that.
Hillary Clinton is a candidate so cautious that, compared to her, Michael
Dukakis seems the second coming of William Jennings Bryan. Everything about
her is polled, focus-grouped, and second-guessed. Her policy positions are
measured in millimeters to the left of center. Her speeches are written
first and foremost to ensure they can never be quoted against her. How many
people remember what Hillary Clinton accomplished as a US Senator? As a
Secretary of State? Since the fiasco of her 1993 health care initiative,
Hillary Clinton has so feared doing the wrong thing that she has almost
always opted to do nothing.

Lead a fight for America’s working people? Hillary Clinton wouldn’t lead a
fight for motherhood and apple pie if motherhood and apple pie were polling
below 70%.

Nor would it likely assuage Elizabeth Warren if Hillary Clinton ever did
speak or act boldly on behalf of Clinton’s core convictions. Few
presidential candidates since William McKinley have had more personal,
financial, and political connections to America’s wealthiest people than
Hillary Clinton. She and her husband have gained a fortune estimated at
$100 million that was, to put it bluntly, more or less donated to them by
their friends and supporters. Hillary Clinton may gravitate to the less
reactionary and more public-spirited billionaires. Yet it’s still
billionaires, billionaires, billionaires all around her.

Worst of all, from Warren’s point of view, would be the policy ambition of
a Hillary Clinton presidency. The big ideas exciting the Democratic center
are free community college education (advanced by President Bill Clinton
back in the 1990s, now endorsed by President Barack Obama) and some kind of
national pre-kindergarten program. Both initiatives are premised on the
assumption that wage stagnation is traceable to educational deficiencies.
These initiatives would be very expensive, but ultimately they are not very
radical: They seek to improve the American worker, not to reform the
American job market.

What if you agree with the Democratic Left that the problem is not the
employee, but the employer? What if you think that Thomas Piketty is right,
that capital is overpaid, that the wealthy have gained too much political
power and are using that power to enrich themselves further? You’re not
likely to get much from a Clinton presidential campaign, still less from a
Clinton presidency.

Only one thing could change this dreary calculus: a credible challenge from
Hillary Clinton’s left. Such a challenge would force Clinton to shift
left—and might extract commitments that would bind a future Clinton
presidency, as the right extracted commitments from Mitt Romney in 2012.
Even better, from the left-wing point of view: A left-wing challenger might
actually win.

Just why, after all, is Hillary Clinton so inevitable? What does Clinton
bring to this contest that she didn’t bring to the contest she lost in
2008? Have her ideas become more exciting? Her speeches more inspiring? Her
story more relatable? The only difference this time is that there’s no
alternative candidate competing against her. And that difference could
change with one word from Warren.

Could Warren do it? Of course she could. More than almost anybody running
in 2016—more even than Republican insurgents like Ted Cruz and Rand
Paul—Warren has both her message and her constituency ready to hand.
Hillary Clinton speaks to those Democrats who feel that Barack Obama went
too far. Elizabeth Warren speaks to those Democrats who feel he didn’t go
far enough. And if Warren’s supporters aren’t as spectacularly wealthy as
Clinton’s, together—as Barack Obama proved in 2008—they can give more than
enough to fund a winning campaign.

What about the general election? Not since 1960 has the Democratic party
won the presidency with a Massachusetts liberal, and even that victory
proved a squeaker. But elections are comparisons, and if Warren has
weaknesses in such a contest, Hillary Clinton has more. Suppose the
Republicans nominate Jeb Bush, as seems at least plausible. What’s the
Clinton message in such a contest? “My husband had a better job creation
record than your brother”? She won’t be able to portray him as a candidate
who owes everything to his famous last name. She won’t be able to ask
questions about how he made so much money so fast without delivering any
real world good or service to anybody. She won’t be able to dismiss him as
out-of-touch with the realities of everyday life. She can’t say that he’s a
throwback to the politics of 20 years ago. Each and every one of those most
promising lines of attack on Jeb Bush will be foreclosed to Hillary
Clinton, because every one of them will be even more damaging to her than
to him. But Elizabeth Warren can speak to them. There’s no national
Democrat who can draw a sharper contrast with Jeb Bush than Warren; no
Democrat who has more in common with him than Hillary Clinton.

By now Warren knows (assuming she didn’t know before she arrived there)
that the only thing the Senate can offer somebody like her is the velvety
asphyxiation of every idealistic hope. If what you like best is the sound
of your own voice and the deference of those around you, then a senatorship
is a wonderful job. If you’re in politics to accomplish things, the
institution must be almost unbearable. Can Warren bear it? The endless
talk, talk, talk? The scoldings from White House aides whenever she says or
does something they deem unhelpful? The merciless editing of her speech at
the next Democratic National Convention —and the surgical exclusion from
the innermost council of the party leadership? That’s the “unique role in
the national conversation” in which a Hillary Clinton led Democratic party
will cast Elizabeth Warren. Warren's got nothing to gain from staying put
in the Senate except drudgery, ineffectuality, and humiliation.

If a politician expresses ideas that are shared by literally tens of
millions of people—and that are being expressed by no other first-tier
political figure—she owes it to her supporters to take their cause to the
open hearing and fair trial of the nation. It would be negligent and
irresponsible not to do so. Elizabeth Warren belongs to that unusual group
who stick by their principles even when it might cost them something,
including an election. But if you’re willing to lose for your principles,
surely you should be willing to try to win for them?

*CNN: “Sanders watches as the Left looks to Warren”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-liberals-organizing-elsewhere/index.html>*

By Dan Merica

January 13, 2015

Bernie Sanders is well aware that if he runs for president in 2016 -- a
decision he says he will announce by March -- he will face a monumental
challenge.

He isn't a registered Democrat, but would be vying for the party's
presidential nomination. He doesn't have much name recognition, but would
be likely going up against the uber-recognizable Hillary Clinton. And as of
late, it doesn't even seem like he has the support of his base.

In the last few months, the liberal activists inside the Democratic Party
have been organizing around the possibility of a long-shot presidential run
by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, not Sanders' seemingly more
likely run.

Liberal groups have been pining for a Warren run for months and on Tuesday,
a coalition of groups announced they would kick off their efforts in New
Hampshire with a rally and plans to open local offices. This comes despite
the fact Warren bluntly said "no" when asked if she was running in 2016.

Sanders' hope, although he is somewhat loathe to admit it, is that he will
someday get that same support.

"Obviously one would hope one would have as much support as possible from
all walks of life," he said on Tuesday when asked why he thinks those
groups aren't rallying around him. "I am a great fan of Elizabeth and as
for what people do and why they don't do it, I am not going to speculate."

Ben Wikler, the Washington Director of Move On, said that although MoveOn
members have "enormous respect for Bernie Sanders," it is Warren who is "on
fire."

"Sen. Warren is perfectly in tune with this moment in history and her
message, which has been a consistent, singularly focused message ...
resonates with an almost electric energy," Wikler said.

A source at MoveOn, however, was more blunt in their assessment of why
Warren over Sanders.

"You can see when the needle breaks the gauge," the source said. "It
happens with Warren. It happens with Warren in a way that it doesn't happen
with anyone else right now."

This is a problem for Sanders: The people he could once rely on -- liberal
organizers -- have found someone else to support.

"If we can't do that," Sanders said on invigorating the grassroots to get
around him, "then I am not going to [run]."

Campaign should focus on issues, not personality

Sanders is the most serious progressive candidate actively entertaining a
run at the presidency in 2016. He has taken a number of trips to Iowa and
New Hampshire, two presidential mainstays, and regularly speaks at liberal
conferences across the country. On Tuesday, in an editorial board meeting
with CNN, he reiterated that he was strongly considering a run as either a
Democrat or a independent.

But that is about all he was interested in talking about regarding 2016.

"Ten minutes into this discussion and no one has asked me about any of the
major issues facing this country," Sanders said after a group of CNN
producers and reporters peppered him with questions about the race, Hillary
Clinton and his prospects for running.

"[I have] no intention of taking on Hillary Clinton, that is not the issue,
that is the wrong question," he said. "I am not taking on Hillary Clinton.
I am taking on the issues."

To Sanders, elections should be more simplified. Candidates outline where
they stand on complex issues, devoid of personality politics and poll
questions about who Americans would rather have a beer with. A number of
times in the hour, Sanders -- a senator who has come to be known as much
for his fly-away hair as his passionate speeches in the Senate -- bluntly
lamented the way political journalism in the United States focuses on
personality as it does.

"I think this is not about personality," Sanders said, raising his
Vermonter-by-way-of-New York voice. "I am not a singer, I am not a dancer,
I am not an entertainer."

Sanders would rather have voters know his policies, than his favorite
vacation destination or his childhood icons.

On college affordability, Sanders wants to pull money from defense and
other government priorities to help fund public universities and bring down
the cost of education.

On campaign finance, the senator reiterated his disdain with Citizens'
United -- a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the flood gates to
outside campaign spending -- but said he would not "commit unilateral
disarmament" and disavow all super PAC activity.

And on healthcare, Sanders said he would push for a "Medicare for all" plan
that would likely dismantle much of the Affordable Care Act.

In Sander's view, it was personality -- not policy -- that elected former
President George W. Bush, someone the independent says was a "very nice guy
... but the worst president this country has had."

"I think the media, and I have to throw this back at you guys, makes it too
easy to cover my grandchildren," he said. "Or Mitt Romney's dog riding on
the top of his car. Very interesting, but it is not important."

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “A list of the many 2016 contenders Rand
Paul has (already) fought with”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/13/rand-paul-pit-bull/>*

By Aaron Blake

January 13, 2015, 1:44 p.m. EST

A funny thing happened last week. As it was becoming even clearer that Jeb
Bush would run for president in 2016, a story appeared on the conservative
Breitbart.com. It quoted Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) dismissing Bush as a
"moderate" and suggesting his support for Common Core education standards
is a deal-breaker in a Republican primary.

Paul suggestively questioned "whether (Republicans) want Common Core,
whether they want more spending, more taxes, whether they want a candidate
who will not pledge to not raise taxes."

It was his second thinly veiled attack on Bush in less than a month. In
mid-December, when Bush announced he would "actively explore" a bid, Paul's
PAC took out Google ads for those who searched for Bush's name. The ads
said, “Join a movement working to shrink government. Not grow it," and "We
need leaders who will stand against common core."

These are not isolated incidents. More than just about any major contender
for president in 2016, Paul has signaled a willingness to mix it up. And
plenty of folks are only so happy to oblige -- even baiting Paul to hit
back.

In fact, with the 2016 campaign not even officially started, Paul has
already tangled with most of the major 2016 contenders on at least one
issue or another. In summary:

Bush: See above

Marco Rubio: He called the Florida senator an "isolationist" for supporting
the Cuba embargo and being opposed to diplomatic relations.

Chris Christie: The two argued repeatedly about privacy concerns versus
national security, with Paul eventually calling New Jersey's governor the
"King of Bacon."

Ted Cruz: After Cruz said his own foreign policy was more Reagan-esque than
Paul's, Paul wrote an op-ed denouncing the Texas senator, saying he
misrepresented Reagan's legacy (without actually naming Cruz).

Rick Perry: The Texas governor spotlighted Paul in a foreign policy op-ed
against isolationism -- a term Paul rejects -- and Paul fought back with
his own op-ed, saying "apparently (Perry's) new glasses haven’t altered his
perception of the world, or allowed him to see it any more clearly."

Bobby Jindal: After a strategist for the Louisiana governor jabbed at Paul
on Twitter, saying he should run as a libertarian, an anonymous Paul aide
called Jindal the "the 2016 version of Tim Pawlenty without the Minnesota
nice.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton: He called her a "war hawk" and kinda, sorta
suggested she might be too old to run for president. He also suggested Bill
Clinton's affair with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, amounted to a male
superior abusing his power over a woman in the workplace.

Now, I would emphasize that in many of these cases -- Christie, Perry, Cruz
and Jindal, in particular -- Paul was indeed baited. Lots of contenders and
their aides want to press the case that Paul is too much of a libertarian
on foreign policy and other issues, thereby reinforcing their own
conservative credentials. And Paul's backers would undoubtedly chalk it up
to their fear of Paul's 2016 potential.

But Paul's retorts, and especially his proactive attacks on Bush, Rubio and
Clinton, suggest a guy who's going to be involved in plenty of jousting in
the 2016 presidential race. That might have been somewhat inevitable, of
course, just by virtue of the different kind of Republican he is. But he's
clearly going to be a focal point for as long as he's viable.

At the same time, he's not quite haphazard. He hasn't yet attacked Mitt
Romney, with whom he has differed in the past but endorsed in 2012. His dad
also played nice with Romney when they were campaigning against each other
in 2012, and the New York Times's Nate Cohn argues that Romney's presence
in the race actually helps the younger Paul by splitting the GOP
establishment.

Another candidate Rand Paul has not tussled with -- despite plenty of
prodding -- is Rick Santorum. The former Pennsylvania senator has tried
repeatedly to engage Paul. He called him a "bomb-thrower" this weekend, hit
him on isolationism in a September op-ed, and suggested in May that the GOP
won't nominate Paul because he's too libertarian.

Hitting back at Santorum would be what political folks like to call
"punching down," and Paul is probably wise not to get mixed up.

As for just about everyone else, though, all bets are off.

*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>)