Correct The Record Wednesday January 14, 2015 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2015-01-14 10:49 Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday January 14, 2015 Morning Roundup

*​**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>)