​Correct The Record Friday December 26, 2014 Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2014-12-26 15:45 Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday December 26, 2014 Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Friday December 26, 2014 Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Washington Post: Hillary Clinton looks to shore up support on the left <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-looks-more-and-more-like-a-candidate-though-its-not-official/2014/12/25/ffbf8d76-87a6-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>* "'What would Robert Kennedy say about the fact that still, today, more than 16 million children live in poverty in the richest nation on Earth?' Clinton asked. 'What would he say about the fact that such a large portion of economic gains have gone to such a small portion of our population,' she continued, also asking about the persistent wealth gap among blacks and Hispanics and the unequal treatment of black men in the criminal justice system." *Associated Press: “Sanders: I’ll Decide On Presidential Run By March” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SANDERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-26-03-26-57>* “Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders says he'll decide by March whether to launch a 2016 presidential campaign and, if so, whether he'll seek the Democratic nomination.” *Washington Post: Dan Balz: “Democrats see rising populist sentiment. But can it shake Hillary Clinton?” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-see-rising-populist-sentiment-but-can-it-shake-hillary-clinton/2014/12/22/a07434c4-8801-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>* “Absent some sign from Warren that she is going to run, can these Democrats successfully pressure Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party’s dominant prospective presidential candidate, to adopt much of their agenda?” *Des Moines Register: Opinion: Clinton and Warren: Facts, not Labels <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/12/26/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-facts-labels/20904077/>* "The fact is, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and most Democrats are more united on the basic issues than I can recall in a long time. They have all focused on the plight of the squeezed middle class and working families stuck in wage stagnation, their children burdened by substantial student loan debts while the income disparity between the super wealthy and the rest of America grows every year with no end in sight." *Associated Press: “Are Americans comfortable with political dynasties?” <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/americans-comfortable-political-dynasties/>* “The possibility of a Bush-Clinton matchup in 2016 is increasingly plausible.” *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “A brief overview of the next six months in (potential) presidential announcements” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/26/a-brief-overview-of-the-next-six-months-in-potential-presidential-announcements/>* “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the most watched potential 2016 candidate but hasn't announced yet if she intends to run. But a shadow campaign bolstered by close allies and unaffiliated political groups have already made her the early Democratic front-runner. Her inner circle has indicated that she will likely not make her announcement until late spring.” *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Romney tops 2016 GOP candidates in new poll” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/228086-romney-tops-2016-gop-candidates-in-new-poll>* “Mitt Romney polls two points ahead of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in Zogby’s latest poll on the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.” *New York Post: “How Hillary could make ObamaCare worse” <http://nypost.com/2014/12/25/how-hillary-could-make-obamacare-worse/>* “Clinton ducks questions about her views on health reform. But the plan she proposed in 1993, as first lady, raises concerns. “ *Articles:* *Washington Post: Hillary Clinton looks to shore up support on the left <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-looks-more-and-more-like-a-candidate-though-its-not-official/2014/12/25/ffbf8d76-87a6-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>* By Anne Gearan December 25, 2014 Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president, is working hard to shore up support among liberals in hopes of tamping down a serious challenge from the left in the battle for the 2016 nomination. Clinton has aligned herself firmly with President Obama since the November midterms on a range of liberal-friendly issues, including immigration, climate change and opening diplomatic relations with Cuba. In an impassioned human rights speech this month, she also condemned the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation tactics and decried cases of apparent police brutality against minorities. The recent statements suggest a concerted effort by Clinton to appeal to the Democratic Party’s most activist, liberal voters, who have often eyed her with suspicion and who would be crucial to her securing the party’s nomination. But the positions also tie her ever more tightly to a president who remains broadly unpopular, providing new lines of attack for the many Republicans jostling to oppose her if she runs. One Democratic strategist said the moves are “more prophylactic than anything. If she didn’t say anything, the media and the liberal groups that care about this stuff” would criticize her or nurse a grudge. Like others, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because Clinton has not yet said she is a candidate. Strategists from both parties also said Clinton is hardly tipping her hand by remarking on matters that will be part of the coming presidential campaign. Clinton has said she is considering a second run for president and would probably reach her decision after Jan. 1. An announcement looks likely in the spring. There are several potential Democratic candidates who could appeal to portions of the party’s liberal base, including former senator Jim Webb (Va.), Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.). Many progressives also are urging a bid by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose populist anti-Wall Street message draws large crowds. In the meantime, Clinton has been quietly meeting with potential campaign advisers and consulting a variety of people, from business leaders to sitting Democratic political figures, about issues she might address in a campaign. She also has been making a point of addressing topical matters at speaking events and other appearances. The former secretary of state’s office has released statements in her name in support of Obama’s announcement of executive action on immigration and on the planned normalization of relations with Cuba. Her appeals to liberals were on clear display last week at a gala award ceremony in New York named for Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1968 during his idealistic run for the White House. Clinton said she is proud to have been part of an administration that ended extrajudicial transfers and abusive treatment of terrorism detainees. The practices were the subject of an exhaustive Senate report this month that concluded that the CIA had engaged in torture and that the methods were ineffective in gaining useful intelligence. The well-dressed crowd in a Manhattan hotel ballroom on Dec. 16 applauded loudly at that statement and thrilled to her broader theme of righting social wrongs. “What would Robert Kennedy say about the fact that still, today, more than 16 million children live in poverty in the richest nation on Earth?” Clinton asked. “What would he say about the fact that such a large portion of economic gains have gone to such a small portion of our population,” she continued, also asking about the persistent wealth gap among blacks and Hispanics and the unequal treatment of black men in the criminal justice system. “What would Robert Kennedy say to the thousands of Americans marching in our streets demanding justice for all? To the young people with their eyes open and their hands up?” The remarks were more in keeping with Clinton’s early career as a lawyer and human rights champion than her later work as a politically moderate senator and failed presidential candidate or as a diplomat. They also appear designed to address a populist hunger among many Democrats for a candidate attuned to economic inequality and the concerns of working people, including many who would prefer a run by Warren. The next day came word that American Alan Gross had been released from prison in Cuba and that Obama planned a larger diplomatic opening to the island nation that looms large in U.S. politics. Clinton issued a statement that evening welcoming Gross’s release and praising the moves to engage with Cuba. “Despite good intentions, our decades-long policy of isolation has only strengthened the Castro regime’s grip on power,” Clinton said. “As I have said, the best way to bring change to Cuba is to expose its people to the values, information and material comforts of the outside world.” Clinton was secretary of state when Gross was detained in 2009 while distributing communications equipment to Jewish groups in Cuba under a contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development. Gross had been convicted in 2011 of crimes against the Cuban state and sentenced to 15 years. Clinton wrote in her memoir “Hard Choices” that not getting Gross out was one of the regrets of her tenure. She also wrote that she had suggested to Obama as she left the administration in 2013 that the time might be right for an overture to Cuba. On the environment, many activists are annoyed by Clinton’s refusal to take a stand on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which requires approval from the State Department, which she used to lead. She sidestepped that issue again at another New York gala this month but gave a strikingly fulsome endorsement of Obama’s recent actions on climate change. “You pushed for and rallied behind President Obama’s use of the Clean Air Act to set the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, which are driving the most dangerous effects of climate change,” Clinton told the League of Conservation Voters. “The unprecedented action that President Obama has taken must be protected at all cost.” Keystone may be stuck in environmentalists’ craw now, but the issue is likely to be resolved before the next president takes office. Clinton appeared to be signaling how she would address the larger and ongoing issue of climate change in the 2016 campaign. “From the administration’s announcement last month of a $3 billion commitment to the global green-climate fund, to that new joint announcement with China [on climate change], to new rules under consideration for ozone, we continue to push forward,” she said. “But that is just the beginning of what is needed.” Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters, said Clinton’s remarks “continue to build on her record on energy and climate issues” at a time when the forthcoming Republican Congress is expected to try to short-circuit Obama’s actions. In early December, during a Boston speech to a women’s group, Clinton took time to address the deaths of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island, saying that many Americans think that the nation’s justice system is off-kilter. She said she supports Obama’s decision to create a new task force on policing and community relations. (She has not weighed in publicly on the killing of two New York police officers, who were slain in apparent revenge for the Staten Island death.) On immigration, Clinton issued a lengthy statement last month supporting Obama’s controversial decision to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation — and blamed congressional Republicans for failing to move ahead on comprehensive reform. “We should never forget that we’re not discussing abstract statistics — we’re talking about real families with real experiences,” she said in the statement. “We’re talking about parents lying awake at night afraid of a knock on the door that could tear their families apart, people who love this country, work hard, and want nothing more than a chance to contribute to the community and build better lives for themselves and their children.” One benefit to highlighting areas of agreement with Obama now is that it will give Clinton the ability to distance herself from him on other issues later. She will have “a whole campaign” to make those distinctions, a senior Democrat said. As Clinton’s every move is scrutinized, it may be too easy to see only political motives in her public statements or to analyze them only as they relate to Obama, some observers said. “She’s a public figure, a former secretary of state, during which time I’m sure that she had a number of conversations with the president about the various issues” she is commenting on, said Nancy J. Hirschmann, a political science professor and director of the University of Pennsylvania’s gender, sexuality and women’s studies program. “She has a clear vision of who she is, so it’s perfectly reasonable for her to express truthfully what her own views are.” *Associated Press: “Sanders: I’ll Decide On Presidential Run By March” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SANDERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-26-03-26-57>* By Dave Gram December 26, 2014, 11:04 a.m. EST BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) -- Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders says he'll decide by March whether to launch a 2016 presidential campaign and, if so, whether he'll seek the Democratic nomination. Either way, Sanders says he wouldn't run just to nudge the debate to the left. "I don't want to do it unless I can do it well," he told The Associated Press. "I don't want to do it unless we can win this thing." Sanders, a socialist, said he grew up "solidly lower middle class" in a Jewish family in Brooklyn - his father, an immigrant from Poland, sold paint for a living -and his views about the distribution of wealth were formed early. "A lack of money in my family was a very significant aspect of my growing up ... kids in my class would have new jackets, new coats, and I would get hand-me-downs," Sanders said. After his graduation from the University of Chicago, Sanders came to Vermont in the 1960s as part of the counterculture, back-to-the-land movement that turned the state from solid Yankee Republican into one of the bluest in the country. He won his first election - for Burlington mayor - by 10 votes, and since then has carried a consistent message thought eight terms in the House and now his second term in the Senate: The rich have too much, the poor and working class not enough. Sanders said the issues about which he's been railing all these years are only becoming more dire. The wealth gap has grown, and the middle class, he says, is "collapsing." "You have one family, the Walton family of Walmart, owning more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people," he said. "We have 95 percent of all new income going to the top 1 percent. You have millions of families unable to afford to send their kids to college. People are desperately worried about whether or not they are going to retire with dignity." Sanders has a 12-step plan that he says will restore the economy and especially the middle class, most of it dependent on higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Among the proposals: A $1 trillion infrastructure building program that would "create 13 million decent-paying jobs," more worker-friendly international trade deals and legislation to strengthen unions, and transforming the U.S. energy system "away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy." He says he'll make a "gut decision" about running for the presidency - and, perhaps, challenging Democratic favorite Hillary Rodham Clinton. He would be 75 in 2016, but "my health is good," he said, knocking on a wooden conference room table. He said he couldn't remember the last time he'd called in sick to work. Sanders said he is weighing whether to run as an independent, as he has done in Vermont, or as a Democrat. He has been critical of both major parties over the years, though he has aligned with liberal Democrats on many issues. Tad Devine, a longtime consultant to Democratic presidential candidates, agreed that 2016 might present an opening to Sanders, a year in which his message could resonate. Fewer people feel they can afford the American dream of sending kids to college and looking forward to a secure retirement, Devine said. "Even the majority of Republicans believe that the deck is stacked against the people in this country," Devine said. "That's exactly what Bernie has been talking about for a long time." Devine, who previously worked for Sanders, said he plans to work for the Vermont senator if he enters the race. Devine said Sanders also could run on a solid legislative record in a Congress that hasn't been known for getting much done recently. As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Sanders this year got passed a $16.3 billion package designed to address problems in the troubled VA health system. His liberal-left record includes voting against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act in 2001, both while he was in the House. Clinton would pose a key challenge for Sanders. "I think the question is, is he a step too far for the mainstream of the Democratic Party? He is a socialist," said Kathy Sullivan, a member of the Democratic National Committee and a Clinton supporter. "I don't think you'll find the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is that big, contrary to what Republicans might think." Peter Burling, a former New Hampshire state senator, longtime Democratic Party leader and a Clinton supporter, said Sanders might have an advantage over her in the amount of passion he can deliver. "I don't think she demonstrated it in the race against (Barack) Obama in 2008," Burling said. Sanders would contrast with Clinton because "he can speak with unfettered passion," Burling said. *Washington Post: Dan Balz: “Democrats see rising populist sentiment. But can it shake Hillary Clinton?” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-see-rising-populist-sentiment-but-can-it-shake-hillary-clinton/2014/12/22/a07434c4-8801-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html>* By Dan Balz December 24, 2014 Last week, in a coffeehouse in downtown Des Moines, a group of progressive activists launched an effort that they hope will change the 2016 presidential campaign and in the process upend the Democratic Party. The gathering in Iowa, organized by MoveOn.org and backed by Democracy for America, was the opening of a grass-roots push to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president. Its broader effect was to escalate the debate among Democrats about the party’s values, its message, its real constituencies and, most of all, how it can win elections in the post-Obama era. That there is such a debate over the direction of the Democratic Party is without question, and the differences have become louder in the wake of the drubbing the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections. What is in question is the degree to which the rising populist movement on the left can materially shape the party’s future. More specifically, absent some sign from Warren that she is going to run, can these Democrats successfully pressure Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party’s dominant prospective presidential candidate, to adopt much of their agenda? To those who argue that the ideological splits within the party are overstated or mostly stylistic, the effort to draft Warren is a misguided enterprise. “There ­really isn’t a huge division in the party,” said former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (D). “. . . I don’t think it’s anything like the tea party and the Republicans.” Rendell, who two years ago criticized President Obama’s campaign for attacking Mitt Romney over his business record at Bain Capital, said he believes most Democrats share Warren’s opposition to a provision favorable to Wall Street in the recently passed spending bill, which she blasted on the Senate floor. Those trying to encourage Warren to run in 2016 argue a different case. Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.Org Civic Action, said there are important policy differences that need to be aired before Democrats pick their 2016 nominee. She cited issues such as how the party should address income inequality, who holds positions of power in the executive branch — a cause taken up by Warren when she opposed Obama’s nomination of investment banker Antonio Weiss as treasury undersecretary — and whether it is even possible for Democrats to have a discussion about expanding, rather than constraining, Social Security benefits. “We are not debating style here,” she said. “We are debating substance.” The power of populism Populist energy pulsates within the party to the point that Democrats cannot agree on whether it has become its dominant ideological strain. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who has championed a populist message as much as Warren, said: “It’s a good, strong message, and it’s a message that she’s carried very well, and it’s a message that a number of us have put out there for a number of years, and it’s catching on. . . . I don’t think it’s there yet.” But Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, who comes out of the centrist Democratic tradition, said he believes the party has tipped in favor of Warren’s anti-Wall Street, populist message. “I don’t think there’s any question,” he said of a shift that he finds worrisome for the party’s future hopes of winning over independents and swing voters. Jim Dean, who heads Democracy for America, said that until recently, the party had “regressed” on the relationship between business and government. “With the ascendance of Elizabeth Warren and the way she has built power for herself, we are seeing a lot of movement for the party to get back to its core values,” he said. Warren has given no indication that she will become a candidate in 2016. Her advocates on the left take hope from the present-tense language she has used to disavow her interest — “I am not running for president,” she repeatedly told NPR’s Steve Inskeep last week — as a sign that her posture is not irreversible. Officials at MoveOn.Org, which counts 8 million members, have said they will commit $1 million to the effort to draft Warren and will set up operations in states with early caucuses or primaries to stoke interest. Democracy for America will chip in $250,000. The groups will focus on organizing in other early-voting states and plan a national day of action in early February, about one year before the 2016 Iowa caucuses. “The only way it will really happen is if there’s a massive grass-roots campaign that shows tremendous support for Elizabeth Warren across the country,” said Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America. A Democratic leader from a battleground state, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment, said he had strong doubts that the movement can reshape the 2016 campaign message. He sees no one with the political heft or following, short of a Warren candidacy, who could pose enough of a threat to Clinton to change what she otherwise would do and say. Rendell was more dismissive of the movement’s potential strength, largely because of what he sees as the lack of differences within the party. “First of all, there has to be a leader of a movement, and there isn’t a good leader,” he said, adding, “If Hillary Clinton ran against Jim Webb or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, they’d get 5 to 6 percent of the vote” in Pennsylvania. However, Tad Devine, a strategist who played key roles in several past Democratic presidential campaigns, sees far greater potential for a populist uprising to galvanize the political dialogue. Arguing that the sense of economic discontent is widespread and that the hunger for a sharper populist agenda is genuine, he said, “If somebody gets up and delivers it with credibility, it’s going to resonate very powerfully in a way that’s not indicative of the party divisions today.” Other Democrats agree that Democratic and Republican candidates alike will be looking to seize the issue of middle-class economic insecurity and that a presidential nominee dare not lose that debate. “The party that figures out the economic message around making prosperity more inclusive for all Americans is going to win this election,” said Bill Burton, a former Obama White House official and current Democratic strategist. “I really do think Republicans will be as attentive to that as Democrats are.” Clinton competition? What rankles many progressives is the possible absence of a genuinely contested battle for the Democratic nomination. If Warren stays out, it is not clear who would have the combination of message and political strength to make the race competitive. At this point, the field is far from fixed. Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, has a worldview that excites some progressives, and he has visited states with early contests as he deliberates whether to run. Webb, a former senator from Virginia, has formed an exploratory committee and has put economic fairness on the table as an issue, but he acknowledges the long-shot nature of his possible candidacy. Maryland’s outgoing governor, Martin O’Malley, has ties to both the centrist and progressive wings of the party and traveled the country this year in preparation for a possible campaign. Devine, an adviser to Sanders, said bluntly that anyone hoping to advance the populist agenda in a possible run against Clinton has to be prepared to wage a serious campaign with all that entails. Half-hearted bus trips through Iowa and New Hampshire are not enough, he said. “If you want this message to take hold with people, you have to challenge the front-runner in the nominating process in a real way, not a symbolic way, the way Gary Hart did with Walter Mondale” in the 1984 Democratic race, he said. At this point, no potential candidate appears ready to challenge Clinton in quite that way. Even many of those urging Warren to run tip-toe around sharp criticism of Clinton or what she stands for. “Our members have deep respect for Hillary Clinton,” Galland said. “The point here is to elevate the exciting message, the powerful track record, the inspiring vision of Elizabeth Warren. That’s our focus, not on anti-Hillary or anti-Bernie.” Dean, of Democracy for America, said the same thing about his organization’s involvement in the draft-Warren movement. Notably, Howard Dean — whose 2004 campaign became the rallying point for the progressive grass roots and lives on today as DFA — recently announced his support for Clinton. Bill Carrick, a California-based Democratic strategist, explained one of the reasons. Pent-up desire for a populist economic message is strong, he said, but many older progressives are conflicted because of their affections for Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton. “Generationally there’s a bunch of people who are very progressive, who essentially are in the baby-boomer world, who are very, very comfortable with Hillary,” he said. “Some of it is they consider the Clinton years successful, politically and economically. Some of it is she’s going to make history and be the first woman president.” Asked about concerns among some progressives that Clinton will not have the kind of strong message they want, Ohio’s Brown said: “I don’t particularly share those concerns. I think Hillary’s got a good sensibility for working-class voters.” Later in the interview, however, he said of Clinton, “She’s going to have to show more independence from Wall Street.” Populist sentiment causes Delaware’s Markell to worry that the party will appeal too narrowly in 2016. He argues that what Democrats need are a growth-oriented message and policies to go with it. “Economic fairness and inequity are important,” he said. “And increasing the minimum wage is important. We’ve done it in Delaware.” But he warned against getting “caught up in the rhetoric of fairness for the sake of fairness.” Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper survived a serious challenge in his reelection bid last month in a crucial swing state. The business-friendly Democrat sees Warren’s populism as “only part of the message” the party needs to adopt. Creating jobs, curtailing excessive regulation of small business and other strategies need to be part of it as well, he said. “It’s not populist in the sense that we’ve got a slogan and we go out there and shout it to the beat of a drum,” he said. “But I think it’s part of the equation of this frustration of working people that the system is skewed against them.” Clinton became a more populist candidate in 2008 after losing a string of contests to Obama and demonstrated her appeal to white, working-class voters. In preparation for a possible 2016 campaign, she has already invoked income inequality as a problem that must be addressed. But her rhetoric, except for what she later said was a mangled comment attacking businesses, does not have the edginess of Warren’s. How strong that message will be if she faces only limited competition for the nomination is what worries liberal activists — which is why they are hoping to entice Warren to run or help elevate her standing even higher. How much strength there is in the progressive movement, and how Clinton weighs its significance, will not be known until she makes her expected announcement of candidacy. *Des Moines Register: Opinion: Clinton and Warren: Facts, not Labels <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/12/26/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-facts-labels/20904077/>* By Lanny J. Davis December 25, 2014 I read about the recent meetings in Iowa, including in Des Moines, organized by MoveOn.org urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president. I read of a lot of labels being used about Secretary Clinton. She was even described as — OMG! — a “centrist.” But then I saw no facts to support these labels. As a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president if she runs, I don’t mind the efforts of some Democrats to urge Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to change her mind and run for president. I admire Warren, especially her recent effort to strip the “cromnibus” budget bill of a rollback of Dodd-Frank. On the other hand, some Republicans have described her as the “Ted Cruz of the Democratic Party.” Unfair and not good. The fact is, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and most Democrats are more united on the basic issues than I can recall in a long time. They have all focused on the plight of the squeezed middle class and working families stuck in wage stagnation, their children burdened by substantial student loan debts while the income disparity between the super wealthy and the rest of America grows every year with no end in sight. Unfortunately, many in the media seem bent on creating bogus substantial differences among them, using empty labels as pejoratives, devoid of facts. For example, a recent Bloomberg news article recently reported that pro-Warren Democrats are concerned about Clinton’s “pro-business economic policies and a roster of Wall Street donors.” But what facts support these labels? Like Warren, Clinton supported the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As a U.S. senator, Clinton opposed extending tax cuts to those earning over $250,000 a year. She supports Obamacare, increasing the minimum wage and the president’s strict regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the planetary threat of global warming. “Pro business economic policies?” Of course, in her two successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate from New York, and in her 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton accepted donations from those who work on Wall Street. So did President Obama in 2008 as well as 2012. But what policies did either support, influenced by such donations? None are cited — none exist. On foreign policy, former Secretary of State Clinton supported the moderate opposition to the brutal Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad — the current policy of Obama. She supported Obama’s policies backing the use of NATO air power (including French and British planes as well as U.S.) to assist the popular revolt against Libya’s military dictator, Moammar Gadhafi. She supports Obama’s limits on U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that justify the label of “hawkish” for her and Obama? Really? Of course, there are differences in style and approach. Like President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton believes in a lean and efficient government as a partner of the job creation engine of the private sector. And she has demonstrated over the years an ability to work with Republicans to get things done. Howard Dean recently endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. He wrote in Politico Magazine: “Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States to serve as President. ... [S]he has a record in the Senate of successfully working with both sides of our very combative political spectrum in order to accomplish goals that improve the lives of ordinary Americans.” Warren has repeatedly stated that she is not running for president in 2016. Perhaps that is because she sees no substantial policy differences that would motivate her to change her mind if fellow progressive Democrat Hillary Clinton becomes a candidate. And the senator understands that Clinton is now in the strongest position to become the nation’s first woman president, leading every possible Republican presidential candidate in the polls, as well as on the four personal qualities that Americans most value in a president. I have been involved as a campaign worker for a Democratic presidential candidate in the Iowa caucuses every four years since 1972. I know that person-to-person conversations and candidate debates on the issues, not on personalities or name-calling, are what Iowans want and expect during the caucus process. If for some reason Warren changes her mind and decides to run, vigorous competition and debates among fellow progressives on the best ideas to achieve similar goals will end up strengthening the ultimate Democratic Party nominee — just as was the case for Barack Obama in 2008. That is why Democrats must resist the media’s apparently unavoidable temptation to create excitement and — may I suggest it? — high ratings and lots of column inches by depicting bogus divisions among Democratic candidates. Supporters of the various candidates need to stick to the facts about their favored candidate and avoid empty, inaccurate labels in describing other Democratic candidates — and insist that the media and the pundits do the same. *Associated Press: “Are Americans comfortable with political dynasties?” <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/americans-comfortable-political-dynasties/>* By Nancy Benac December 25, 2014 Again? Really? There are more than 300 million people in America, yet the same two families keep popping up when it comes to picking a president. The possibility of a Bush-Clinton matchup in 2016 is increasingly plausible. After months of hints and speculation, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says he’s actively exploring a bid for the Republican nomination. And while Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn’t revealed her intentions, she’s seen as the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination. Between them, the two potential rivals have three presidents and a U.S. senator in the branches of their family trees. And three governors, as well. Why are these two families so dominant in modern politics? It turns out that even though Americans profess to reject dynasties, in politics they’re quite comfortable with familiar names. And a famous name can bring a candidate instant brand recognition, important fund-raising connections and a ready network of political contacts. It may also suggest competence at a time of dysfunction — like now. “Power begets power,” says Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. “Dynasties can self-perpetuate.” A political pedigree can have its negatives, though. A prominent surname sometimes carries unsavory associations and the risk of a fatigue factor. Both sides of that equation were evident after Bush, 61, the son and brother of a president and the grandson of a senator, made his announcement. Party activists said the Bush name would help Jeb attract early money, talent and supporters around the country. But Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, was hugely unpopular at the end of his presidency six years ago. And while people seem to think more of him now, the recent release of a Senate report on Bush-era torture practices was a ready reminder of past controversies. Clinton, 67, a former secretary of state, senator and first lady, will face the same competing dynamics of familiarity vs. fatigue if she enters the race. Former President Bill Clinton is enormously popular now, and would be sure to campaign for his wife as he did in the 2008 race, but there is still plenty of lingering unwanted baggage from his White House years. After Bush edged closer to a run last week, the liberal RootsAction group quickly set up a NoBushesorClintons website and began collecting signatures on a “declaration of independence” that pledges to “reject future domination of government by the Bushes and Clintons and by Bush/Clinton-like policies.” But Princeton historian Julian Zelizer thinks the comfort element might be more important to 2016 voters than any same-old, same-old worries. “Washington’s broken, and voters and campaign donors are looking for people who seem to know what they’re doing,” he said. “The familiarity of these names becomes a big benefit and counteracts any sense that, ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe these are going to be the candidates again.’ ” Despite some groaning about a possible Bush-Clinton sequel, there’s plenty of reason to think voters will simply take a breath and size up the primary election candidates on their merits. “It’s all about alternatives,” Zelizer says. “If that’s the best choice available, people will get over it.” Dynastic politics, in which multiple family members hold elected office, are more common than people might think in the U.S. The U.S. has had 44 presidents, and eight of them came from four families (two each of Adams, Harrison, Roosevelt and Bush). Nyhan points to a 2010 study published in Legislative Studies Quarterly that found that over the previous two centuries, nearly 9 percent of members of Congress were closely related to someone who had served in a previous Congress. It concluded that such politicians “enjoy ‘brand name advantages,’ giving them a significant edge over comparable nondynastic opponents.” That kind of talk makes Jeff Cohen’s skin crawl. Cohen, a co-founder of the RootsAction group, said even his non-political friends frequently complain about the dominance of the Bushes and Clintons. “It’s a source of frustration and it’s broad,” he says, calling the Bushes and Clintons “symbols of a corrupt system and a permanent governing class.” Even Bush’s mother has suggested a third President Bush could be one too many. “If we can’t find more than two or three families to run for high office, that’s silly,” she said earlier this year. (Mom supposedly has since come around to the idea of another Bush candidacy.) Clinton, for her part, may have to worry as much about Obama fatigue as she does about Clinton fatigue. “She served in Obama’s Cabinet, she’s been around a long time, and she’s quite old for a presidential candidate,” says Nyhan. “So the Republicans have an opportunity to run a turning-the-page campaign against her.” Of course, if she’s running against a Bush, that’s a harder case for Republicans to make. *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “A brief overview of the next six months in (potential) presidential announcements” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/26/a-brief-overview-of-the-next-six-months-in-potential-presidential-announcements/>* By Jose A. DelReal December 26, 2014, 10:00 a.m. EST The new year is still to come, but for political pundits, operatives, and reporters, 2015 is already all about one thing: 2016. With that in mind, we've compiled a list of when we might expect the likeliest presidential candidates to announce whether they will run or not. But wait, isn't it too early to be thinking about 2016? In a word: no. Candidates will need to move quickly to shore up support among donors, particularly with establishment juggernauts like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush poised to lock down many of their parties' high-dollar supporters. Announcing early in the cycle also comes with the added benefit of increasing media exposure, a tempting perk for those seeking to expand their national profile before primary season has formally begun. And precedent shows that we're entering a key window in presidential announcements: — Barack Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 after launching an exploratory committee in January. The long-shot candidate (remember that?) gave several heavy handed signs that he was considering a run in the months head of that announcement. — Hillary Clinton launched her 2008 campaign in January of 2007, intentionally timed ahead of President George W. Bush's State of the Union address. — John McCain, the eventual 2008 GOP nominee, announced his candidacy in April of 2007 but launched his exploratory committee in November of 2006. — Mitt Romney launched an exploratory committee in January of 2007 and formally announced that he would run in February 2007. For the 2012 cycle, in which Romney won the GOP nomination, announced his exploratory committee in April of 2011 and formally launched his campaign in June of that year. Potential candidates have been huddling with their closest advisers, reaching out to would-be donors, and making visits to key early primary states. And some of them — or at least their staffs — have already given (very rough) estimates about when we might be able to expect their decisions. Republicans we're watching Jeb Bush (R) Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced earlier this month that he would “actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States," launching a political action committee to support that effort. Bush, the early establishment favorite, will almost certainly launch a full-fledged campaign but there is no indication yet when he will formally announce. Chris Christie (R) Gov. Chris Christie, who has plainly indicated he has presidential aspirations, said last week that he will discuss a White House run with his family over the holidays. He has not indicated when an announcement might come, should he choose to run. Sen. Ted Cruz (R) Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has made it evident that he is interested in pursuing a presidential bid. According to National Journal, the tea party favorite was reportedly considering a 2014 year-end announcement as recently as September. But it's unclear how (or if) recent events — a failed coup in the Senate and the sudden focus on U.S.-Cuban diplomatic relations — will affect his decision. Rand Paul (R) Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has already announced that he will run for reelection to the Senate in 2016. But the freshman senator has also been quietly building a presidential campaign infrastructure and is expected to announce whether he will run sometime in the spring, likely in April. Rick Perry (R) Outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been preparing for another presidential bid, studying to tighten his grasp on policy and working with media experts to polish his public persona. Perry has said that, if he chooses to run, he will announce in May or June. Scott Walker (R) Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker fought off a challenge in his home state from Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke this year, wining a crucial victory that could bolster a national election. Politico reported in November that Walker may be eyeing a summer 2015 announcement if he chooses to run. Mike Pence (R) Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has been weighing a presidential bid but thus far hasn't made few affirmative steps in that direction. It remains unclear if he will actually run. John Kasich (R) Ohio Gov. John Kasich — who coasted to reelection this year in the critical battleground state — has indicated that he may be open to a 2016 presidential bid but thus far hasn't said when he may announce his decision. Democrats we're watching Hillary Clinton (D) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the most watched potential 2016 candidate but hasn't announced yet if she intends to run. But a shadow campaign bolstered by close allies and unaffiliated political groups have already made her the early Democratic front-runner. Her inner circle has indicated that she will likely not make her announcement until late spring. Martin O’Malley (D) Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who would be considered a presidential long shot candidate but has garnered favorable media attention, is reportedly preparing a potential 2016 campaign. The governor has indicated that he will make up his mind in January but several key allies suggest that he will wait until April. Jim Webb (D) Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb in November launched a presidential exploratory committee and announced his candidacy in a 14-minute web video. He became the first Democratic candidate to formally enter the race. Elizabeth Warren (D) Although progressives have called on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to enter the 2016 presidential contest, the Massachusetts Democrat insists she is not running for president. (She's not running right now, that is.) So that's it, then -- those are the candidates? Nope. Current events will continue changing the shape of the fledgling field. The White House's recent diplomatic shift toward Cuba, for example, threw Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio into the center of the national debate over the move's implications. In seizing on that moment, Rubio has resuscitated chatter about a potential 2016 run which many political watchers had begun dismissing as a long shot. But even with 2015 still days away, any new 2016 candidate may already be running short on time. *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Romney tops 2016 GOP candidates in new poll” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/228086-romney-tops-2016-gop-candidates-in-new-poll>* By Ian Swanson December 25, 2014, 10:19 a.m. EST Mitt Romney polls two points ahead of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in Zogby’s latest poll on the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Romney, the 2012 GOP standard-bearer who some believe would be the party’s best candidate in 2016, gets 14 percent in the new poll released late Wednesday. That’s two points better than Bush, a favorite of the GOP establishment who announced this month that he is exploring a possible campaign. Narrowly trailing those two is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) at 10 percent; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 8 percent; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) at 7 percent. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker gets 5 percent, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Texas Gov. Rick Perry are favored by 4 percent and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wins support from 3 percent, as does Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Nineteen percent list “other” or “not sure” when they are polled, highlighting the wide-open nature of the GOP race. The poll also suggests all of the Republicans would trail Hillary Clinton is she chooses to run for the White House. It found Clinton leading all of the top tier GOP candidates by wide margins. She wins 49 percent support compared to 34 percent for Bush; 51 percent compared to 33 percent for Paul; 48 percent compared to 33 percent for Christie and 50 percent compared to 35 percent for Romney. The Zogby poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus six points. *New York Post: “How Hillary could make ObamaCare worse” <http://nypost.com/2014/12/25/how-hillary-could-make-obamacare-worse/>* By Betsy McCaughey December 25, 2014, 9:44 p.m. EST AN ABC-Washington Post poll shows 61 percent of Democrats support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, far more than other contenders. If she wins the White House, health reform could become even more painful than ObamaCare. Clinton ducks questions about her views on health reform. But the plan she proposed in 1993, as first lady, raises concerns. That proposal was even more coercive than ObamaCare. She put price controls on doctors and limits on how much health care the nation could consume annually and how much you could buy for your own family — even if you paid for it yourself. True, that was 20 years ago. But it’s an important window into her thinking. Before Americans choose candidates for 2016, they ought to ask how much power they want government to have over their health care and whether Clinton stands by the coercive plan she proposed the last time she was in the White House. Start with whether the government should force us to have insurance. The Obama administration is using ads and street fairs to convince people to get covered. Millions are still saying “no.” ObamaCare penalizes the uninsured but also offers exemptions, including just pleading “hardship.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 90 percent of the uninsured will not be penalized. Clinton wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. If you failed to enroll or the plan you chose was oversubscribed, government would assign you one (Health Security Act of 1993, pp. 144, 146; the text is available online). As for people not paying their premiums, Hillary told a House hearing back then that an equivalent amount would “be deducted from their wages or obtained through tax deductions in some other way.” Under Hillary’s plan, to see a doctor you would have to prove you’re enrolled or get enrolled on the spot. The doctor could only be paid by the plan, not by you. Government officials would put price controls on what doctors charge, barring them from charging more or accepting payments directly from patients (pp. 236-237). Why would anyone want to pay a doctor directly? Privacy for one thing. Access, for another. Access would have been a problem. Her plan limited what you would be allowed to pay for insurance. That limits how much money is in the pot to take care of you when you’re sick. It turns insurers into rationers. Princeton Prof. Paul Starr (Hillary’s Jonathan Gruber) said it would force doctors and hospitals “to manage under constraint.” Under HillaryCare, government could outlaw any plan that cost 20 percent above the average plan. In contrast, ObamaCare doesn’t outlaw generous plans. Its Cadillac tax, scheduled for 2018, would discourage them, but union opposition makes that tax an uncertainty. Under ObamaCare, people who can afford it pay concierge doctors extra to get care without waiting. But Clinton’s scheme effectively barred you from going outside the system to get better or faster care. The biggest difference between ObamaCare and Hillary’s approach is how they rein in the nation’s health spending. ObamaCare tries payment innovations, such as Accountable Care Organizations, with little progress so far. Federal actuaries predict health spending will increase rapidly, hitting a staggering 19.3 percent of GDP by 2023. Hillary wouldn’t put up with that. Her plan used coercion. At the time, she said, “We all must learn to live within a budget.” The government would impose a dollar limit on what the nation could spend. If spending neared that limit, insurers and government payers would be legally required to cut payments to doctors, nurses and hospitals to avoid going over budget (p. 137). Such central planning — even in the face of unforeseen problems such as the flu or EV-68 — would risk patients’ lives and the livelihoods of doctors and nurses. Is that what Americans want? Hillary may have discarded some of her radical ideas. And, of course, anything she proposes would have to get through Congress. Nonetheless, voting for Hillary before knowing where she stands on health reform could be dangerous to your health. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired <http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm> ) · January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press <http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.html> ) · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)