podesta_email_01217.txt

podesta-emails 9,005 words email

D6 P17 P22 V11 V12

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Friday December 12, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *National Journal: “Clinton Supporters Don't Mind Waiting for a Campaign Kickoff” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-supporters-don-t-mind-waiting-for-a-campaign-kickoff-20141211>* “December 11, 2014 Hillary Clinton is keeping her closest supporters waiting for any sign of a presidential campaign announcement. But they don't mind it at all.” *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton: Why Wait to Announce 2016 Bid?” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/12/hillary-clinton-why-wait-to-announce-2016-bid/>* “It all suggests a Hillary Clinton presidential bid is under way. Only there’s no candidate.” *Slate: “Down and Out” <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_extraordinary_the_party.html>* “Democrats might have strong national prospects in the form of Hillary Clinton, but they have little to look to in the states.” *CNN: “Torture report splits 2016 Democrats” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/2016-democrats-torture/index.html>* “A Clinton spokesman has not responded to emails asking for comment after the release of the report.” *Politico: “Bill Clinton: Let’s push for more info on CIA torture” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/bill-clinton-cia-torture-113523.html>* “Former President Bill Clinton is backing the release of a report documenting the CIA’s use of torture after the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the country should ‘keep pushing’ to find out more about what happened.” *Bloomberg: “Welcome to the Democrats' Post-Obama Family Feud” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-12/welcome-to-the-democrats-postobama-family-feud>* “It's turning out to be an awkward week for the Dean family. As former Vermont Governor Howard Dean announced Wednesday that he would back a Hillary Clinton presidential bid, the progressive group he founded declared that they were launching a major campaign to coax Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren into the race.” *National Journal: “Elizabeth Warren: The GOP's New Favorite Foil” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/elizabeth-warren-the-gop-s-new-favorite-foil-20141211>* “With congressional compromises collapsing all around them and facing a pending government shutdown, Republicans are testing a new message: Blame it all on Elizabeth Warren.” *Boston Globe: “Mass. group hopes to give Clinton a headstart” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/12/11/mass-group-hopes-give-clinton-headstart/WaIrJmI3QZj9AswwY0D0AK/story.html>* “Now, a new entrant from Massachusetts: Sign for Hillary. The online venture, which went live Thursday afternoon, has a very specific mission: giving Clinton a headstart on the laborious process of collecting signatures to get on the ballot in Democratic primaries all over the country.” *Politico: “Backers: Romney more open to 2016 run” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/mitt-romney-2016-run-113518.html>* “For most of the past year, Mitt Romney supporters have publicly said he should consider running again. And for most of the past year, Romney has seemed uninterested. Until recently.” *Politico: “Ex-Obama aide makes Warren-2016 push” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/christopher-hass-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-113524.html>* “The onetime aide, Christopher Hass, has circulated the letter on an Obama alumni email group and said it will be released on Friday.” *Articles:* *National Journal: “Clinton Supporters Don't Mind Waiting for a Campaign Kickoff” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-supporters-don-t-mind-waiting-for-a-campaign-kickoff-20141211>* By Emily Schultheis December 11, 2014 [Subtitle:] Absence makes the heart grow fonder for the former secretary of State. December 11, 2014 Hillary Clinton is keeping her closest supporters waiting for any sign of a presidential campaign announcement. But they don't mind it at all. Clinton's decision to accept paid speeches as late as March of next year is sending the message to leading Democratic operatives that a possible campaign announcement may not come until next spring. And as Clinton delays the seemingly inevitable decision, she's receiving surprisingly little blowback from Democratic activists who usually are spoiling for intra-party competition. Democratic operatives in both Iowa and New Hampshire say that Clinton's high national name ID, residual support, and organization from 2008 along with the efforts of the pro-Clinton group Ready for Hillary mean there's really no downside to the former secretary of State taking as much time as she needs before entering the 2016 race. "Hillary Clinton is going to do what Hillary Clinton is going to do, and everyone is just going to react to it when that happens," said Norm Sterzenbach, an Iowa Democratic strategist. "She could get in at almost any time over the next six to seven months and would still be the front-runner.… I don't think it really changes much for her." Earlier this week, Clinton accepted an invitation to speak to the New York and New Jersey chapter of the American Camp Association on March 19, which has led to speculation that any campaign announcement won't come until late March. She also has scheduled paid speeches for Jan. 21 in Canada and Feb. 24 in the San Francisco Bay Area. For Clinton's eventual campaign, the benefits of a later announcement are obvious: If she isn't a candidate, it's harder for people to treat her like one—and easier for her to not answer specific policy questions she'd rather avoid. Earlier this month, she gave the keynote address at the League of Conservation Voters dinner in New York without discussing whether she supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The earlier she gets in, of course, the earlier her supporters can begin organizing in an official way—and nowhere is that more important than in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. These states are used to starting early, and many supporters are itching to start mobilizing for a Clinton campaign. But in the meantime, the Ready for Hillary super PAC fills that void—and has been giving Clinton backers a place to go since 2013. Supporters of Clinton say the group has helped keep potential Clinton backers engaged and involved—and kept them from looking elsewhere in the time before Clinton's decision is announced. "Ready for Hillary has helped give Secretary Clinton the luxury of time," said Jerry Crawford, a longtime Clinton supporter who advises Ready for Hillary. "It has kept some of the pressure off in terms of moving quickly into campaign mode." The group sent more than two dozen staffers to key midterm states, including Iowa and New Hampshire, earlier this fall. It has had advisers and volunteers in key presidential states for more than a year, who have been holding house parties and organizational events to bring more people on board. As a result, the group has signed up "tens of thousands" of supporters in Iowa alone. "I think people would be getting antsy now if there were no Ready for Hillary," said Terry Shumaker, another longtime Clinton backer who advises the group in New Hampshire. "[Even in 2013] there was this pent-up desire, in New Hampshire particularly, where the Clintons have many supporters, to do something to encourage her to run. Ready for Hillary has been able to channel that energy in a very positive way." Should Clinton choose a later announcement, she'd be helped by the fact that presidential campaign activity in both parties seems to be holding off until at least early next year. With the exception of Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who formed an exploratory committee last month, no 2016 hopeful has made formal moves to enter the race yet—and some even say it will be late spring or summer before they do anything official. That said, the idea of a spring announcement from Clinton does scramble the typical calculus for candidates in these states, some operatives said. In Iowa, for example, prospective candidates usually start forming exploratory committees on the January before the caucuses, staffing up in the state and making trips out. At this point, several Democrats have made pilgrimages to Iowa and New Hampshire; however, the only Democrat who has logged regular trips to the early states and begun doing the legwork for a bid is Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Still, the absence of additional intra-party competition—which Clinton faced in 2008 with the early entrance of Barack Obama into the race—gives Clinton more room to take her time. Crawford said that exhaustion from a particularly tough midterm year in Iowa has many of its Democratic operatives and activists thankful this cycle's presidential prospects are taking things slow. Iowa, he said, has "just endured a grueling and depressing U.S. Senate race"—a reference to Democrat Bruce Braley's 9-point loss to GOP state Sen. Joni Ernst—and its political class is grateful for the time off before presidential season begins in earnest. Activists and observers give varying timelines for when people will start to wonder whether Clinton not running after all—some say once April begins, while others named May 1. But most expect that the answer will come before then, especially if it's a "no." "If somebody is waiting for an announcement from Mrs. Clinton, then that person is probably prepared to wait not only through December and January but also through February and March," said Kurt Meyer, who chairs Iowa's Mitchell County Democratic Party. "She need not declare for our sakes." Jim Davis, a 2008 supporter of Clinton and longtime Democratic activist who's backing her again, said he's willing to wait. "From my standpoint, until she makes it clear one way or another, I'm not going anywhere," he said. *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton: Why Wait to Announce 2016 Bid?” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/12/hillary-clinton-why-wait-to-announce-2016-bid/>* By Peter Nicholas December 12, 2014, 6:16 a.m. EST She is giving speeches at a dizzying clip. Popping up at the White House to chat with President Barack Obama. Schmoozing with Prince William and his wife, Kate, during the royal couple’s recent trip to New York. It all suggests a Hillary Clinton presidential bid is under way. Only there’s no candidate. Mrs. Clinton hasn’t announced she is running. And it’s now looking as if she could wait until spring before she officially jumps into the 2016 presidential race. The last time she ran, she declared in January of 2007. Were she to stick to the same timetable, she’d tell us of her plans next month. Why wait? After all, most people already seem convinced she’s running, and Mrs. Clinton has done little to discourage the idea. Let’s look at both sides of the argument. Three reasons it might be in her interest to delay an announcement: –Self-interest. Once she declares, she’s on the hook to release a personal financial disclosure form. That will provide fresh fodder for critics who believe former President Bill Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have entered the ranks of the super-rich, propelled by six-figure speaking fees. There’s a palpable strain of populism in the Democratic Party, personified by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). A spotlight on the Clintons’ personal wealth could stir up the left, stoking calls for a primary challenge from Ms. Warren. –Money. Some Democrats have complained that donors won’t commit to candidates not named Hillary Clinton while she’s a potential candidate. She’s effectively frozen the Democratic field. By keeping people guessing, Mrs. Clinton starves potential primary opponents of the campaign money they need to begin a credible presidential bid. –Convenience. Mrs. Clinton is the runaway front-runner for the Democratic nomination. She has a campaign apparatus waiting. No other prospective candidate in either party comes to the race with such built-in advantages. Meantime, she can counter any Republican attacks by saying she’s not even a candidate. And she can continue making money through paid speeches, such as one coming up in March to a summer camp conference in Atlantic City. Three reasons to announce now: –Party loyalty. Democrats are at a crossroads, following their disastrous showing in the midterm elections last month. The party is divided between Warren-style liberals and pragmatic centrists. Fissures have developed between Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional leaders. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Thursday she was “enormously disappointed” the White House agreed to a $1.1 trillion spending bill that would roll back language in the Dodd-Frank law regulating financial institutions. Mrs. Clinton, once she enters the race, would be the party’s instant standard-bearer and could help bridge divisions. –Control. Many Democrats aren’t waiting for Mrs. Clinton; they’re starting her campaign with or without her. That’s not necessarily in her interest. Last week, an enterprising super PAC in California went so far as to release a music video that has the feel of a Clinton campaign theme song. Was the video a ham-handed plea for the white male working class vote? Or an inspired attempt to broaden the appeal of a woman determined to break the ultimate glass ceiling? You be the judge. In any case, the video went viral. If a Clinton campaign were up and running, there would be less attention paid to freelance efforts and more focus on the ideas coming from the actual candidate. Mrs. Clinton would be better positioned to control the messages coming out under her name. –Reality. Is there really any doubt that Mrs. Clinton is dead-set on running? If not, why put off the inevitable? Why not get it over with and announce after the holidays? “I’m baaaack,” Mrs. Clinton said in September at a Democratic fundraising event in Iowa, the state that hosts the first-in-the-nation nominating contest. She’s back. So … get in. *Slate: “Down and Out” <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_extraordinary_the_party.html>* By Jamelle Bouie December 11, 2014, 3:03 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] The Democratic Party’s losses at the state level are almost unprecedented, and could cripple it for a long time to come. The most immediate consequence of the Democrats’ midterm disaster was losing control of the Senate and ceding Congress to the GOP. For the next two years, Democrats will have to deal with conservative legislation, right-wing hijinks, and—in all odds—a vacancy crisis, as Republicans freeze confirmations and refuse to fill spots in the executive branch and on the federal bench. That is bad for the Democratic Party. What’s on the horizon is worse. As Amy Walter notes for the Cook Political Report, Democrats lost big at all levels of government, including the states. “Today,” she writes, “about 55 percent of all state legislative seats in the country are held by Republicans. That’s the largest share of GOP state legislators since the 1920s.” What’s more, “just 11 states have an all Democratic-controlled legislature,” and Democrats hold single-party control in just seven states. By contrast, “Republicans have a legislative majority in 30 states, including the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina,” and single-party control in most of the South. This, Walter says, is a slow-moving disaster for congressional Democrats. She’s right. Absent major gains in 2016, 2018, and 2020, Democrats will be shut out of the next round of redistricting. If, she writes, “Democrats can’t get a seat at the redistricting table in 2020, they may find themselves locked out of a congressional majority for another 10 years.” And even if they do get a seat at the table, argues Greg Sargent for the Washington Post, there’s still the problem of population distribution; even in blue states, most Democratic voters are crammed in a handful of urban areas, which dilutes their strength in House elections. Sargent quotes David Wasserman (also of the Cook Political Report): “If Democrats were to get neutral maps drawn by God in all 50 states, they would still fall well short of winning back the House,” says Wasserman. “What Democrats really need is a massive resettlement program.” With that said, there are more costs to Democratic weakness in the states than just House elections. States are where parties build talent and try new ideas. Here, the GOP is instructive. Its brightest stars are either governors (Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Chris Christie) or former state officeholders (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Joni Ernst). And Republican-controlled statehouses have been incubators for conservative ideas, from experiments in tax cutting (Bobby Jindal’s Louisiana and Sam Brownback’s Kansas) to full-fledged assaults on public-sector unions (Walker’s Wisconsin and Christie’s New Jersey). In all likelihood, the next Republican president will either come from the states, or will borrow his approach from the present generation of GOP governors. Likewise, if Democrats win the White House for a third term, they’ll face opposition from Congress and empowered Republican majorities at the state level. Indeed, if not for statehouse Republicans, the Affordable Care Act would be a smoother project, with broader buy-in for exchanges and the Medicaid expansion. Democrats might have strong national prospects in the form of Hillary Clinton, but they have little to look to in the states. Only a few places stand as incubators for progressive strategies and ideas, and nationwide, Democrats have close to nothing in the way of a bench for federal and statewide office. The liberal counterparts to Walker, Christie, Brownback, and Mike Pence—ideologically motivated governors with national profiles—don’t exist. And as a result, liberals can’t point to a forward-looking agenda that exists outside the bounds of the presidency. Worse, without a strong presence in the states, liberals lack a base for institutional pressure. Outside of Congress, there are few party voices pushing President Obama to the left, or urging a more liberal approach to key policy matters. And while part of this is just the nature of the game—parties try to maintain unity when they control the White House—part of it has to do with the lack of strong liberal voices (and strong liberal agendas) throughout the country. If you have your doubts, you just have to look at the field of presidential candidates for the 2016 Democratic primary who aren’t Clinton. At most—for viable, liberal alternatives outside of Congress—there’s outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. The rest are either sitting senators or moderate governors, like New York’s Andrew Cuomo. Put simply, the two statewide Republican waves have put Democrats and liberals on the near-term defensive. The former will struggle to build a new bench for the post-Obama era, and the latter will fight to put effective pressure on a national party that—if it follows the lead of its likely nominee—isn’t eager to embrace the unapologetic liberalism of its activist class. And the honest truth is that things could get worse. With a sudden economic downturn, Democrats could enter 2016 as serious underdogs, giving Republicans a real chance to elevate new talent and give their statewide strategies a spin on the national stage. *CNN: “Torture report splits 2016 Democrats” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/2016-democrats-torture/index.html>* By Dan Merica December 11, 2014, 4:07 p.m. EST The release of the CIA torture report on Tuesday, detailing brutal post-9/11 interrogation tactics, has led to an array of responses from potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, in an interview with The New York Times released Thursday, moved to the left of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when he called for a "special prosecutor" from the Justice Department to look into those who carried out the torture. "I think there needs to be some accountability so that this doesn't happen again," O'Malley said. "I don't believe the United States should torture. Period. Full stop." All Democrats eying the presidency are against torture, but so far O'Malley is the only to advocate for a Justice Department investigation. Clinton, during her time of the speaking circuit, has advocated for the release of the torture report but not a special prosecutor. "I thought we needed more transparency," Clinton said at a June event, reflecting on her time as secretary of state. "I didn't want people to be criminally prosecuted, people who were doing what they were told to do, that there were legal opinions supporting what they were told to do, but I wanted transparency." She added, "And that's what Dianne Feinstein is trying to provide with that 6,000-page report. And I think the American people deserve to see it." A Clinton spokesman has not responded to emails asking for comment after the release of the report. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a statement on Tuesday after the torture report was released. "The United States must not engage in torture," Sanders said. "If we do, in an increasingly brutal world, we lose our moral standing to condemn other nations or groups that engage in uncivilized behavior." Sanders, however, did not comment on a special prosecutor and his spokesman was unable to provide a statement on Thursday from the senator. In a conversation with reporters on Wednesday, Sanders did, however, say that if anyone lied to elected official on torture, "they should be fired immediately." And former Sen. Jim Webb, the only Democrat who has announced an exploratory committee into the 2016 race, questioned why lawmakers didn't provide better oversight of the program. "The policies that allowed or turned a blind eye to these acts are no longer in place. The question is whether the intelligence committees are properly conducting oversight functions today," he said in a statement. Webb also sent a number of tweets about the torture report that seemed to cast doubt on why Congress was looking into the matter now. "Where was the Intelligence Committee when the torture was going on," question Webb in one tweet. "The question is not torture, but how far Congress has descended in its historical oversight role on key issues of foreign policy," he said in another. *Politico: “Bill Clinton: Let’s push for more info on CIA torture” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/bill-clinton-cia-torture-113523.html>* By Katie Glueck December 11, 2014, 9:06 p.m. EST Former President Bill Clinton is backing the release of a report documenting the CIA’s use of torture after the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the country should “keep pushing” to find out more about what happened. In an interview Thursday with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos, Clinton also rebutted critics’ claims that the report’s release by the Senate Intelligence Committee will spark reactions that could endanger Americans. “What I hope will happen is that we will keep pushing on this, find out exactly what happened, give anybody who disagrees a chance to have their say, and then do what we should always do in cases like this — say what our policy is going to be on this and stick with it and have it consistent with international law,” Clinton said. “I do not think we are in more danger because of this.” The Democratic former president added that the release of the report showed that “we believe, instead of putting these problems under the rug and hiding them, it’s better to come out and say, ‘OK, this is what happened, now let’s talk about how we can fix it, how we can make it better.’” Clinton also declined to fault former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time the CIA was using the harsh tactics on terrorist suspects. Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — a likely Democratic presidential contender in 2016 — has yet to publicly weigh in on the report and its release. Hillary Clinton served in the Senate during Bush’s presidency. *Bloomberg: “Welcome to the Democrats' Post-Obama Family Feud” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-12/welcome-to-the-democrats-postobama-family-feud>* By Lisa Lerer December 12, 2014, 5:45 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] The Progressive movement is in search of a leader and a voice to pressure Hillary Clinton to embrace populist economic issues. It's turning out to be an awkward week for the Dean family. As former Vermont Governor Howard Dean announced Wednesday that he would back a Hillary Clinton presidential bid, the progressive group he founded declared that they were launching a major campaign to coax Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren into the race. "Some of the other candidates may not be happy about this but they’ll thank us for it later," Jim Dean, executive director of Democracy for America, and Howard's brother, said of the effort to woo Warren. "Part of this is trying to wake the party up." His position couldn't be more different than his brother's, who praised Clinton as a "mature, seasoned, thoughtful leader" in an editorial published by Politico that morning. As the Jims of the Democratic world are clamoring for an alternative to Clinton, the Howards are racing to line up behind her even though she hasn't decided whether to run. The two powerful women at the center of the discontent, however, are little more than indicators of a far broader family feud over the Democratic party’s future heading into 2016. On one side of the debate are strategists and officials, including some aligned with Clinton, who believe their path to the White House in the post-Obama era rests with wooing centrist, working class voters. To progressive activists, union members, and other parts of the "professional left," as an Obama aide once called them, victory lies in running on an aggressive, populist economic message. "Some of the jockeying now is trying to strategically make sure Hillary understands that she can't be an economic moderate without generating pushback," said Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union. "Progressives are anxious that her policies, not her heart, will be too generous toward Wall Street." That debate will take center stage this weekend, when liberal activists gather in Washington for RootsCamp, an annual "unconference" that brings thousands of progressives to the Washington Convention Center. A major topic in the hallways will be the announcement by liberal groups this week of plans to spend more than a million dollars, including opening offices in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, trying to convince beloved economic populist Warren to challenge Clinton. Despite Warren's insistent refrain that she is not running for president, activists see a glimmer of hope. "She's been very consistent in her statements saying she is not running present tense," said Neil Sroka, a spokesman for Democracy for America. "Tense matters." For now, though, progressives are a movement in search of a leader. With Clinton's take-over of the Democratic party near complete, there's no national figure willing to take up their cry. Other than Warren, former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, known for his principled stances against big money in politics, has a government job already—working for the State Department that Clinton used to run. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley’s political clout was weakened by the midterm loss of his lieutenant governor in the race to succeed him and the governor has pulled staff out of Iowa. Even Al Sharpton, who hammered Clinton for taking weeks to comments on the racially-charged riots in Ferguson, Missouri, put out a press release to brag about his birthday call from Clinton. Of course, Clinton could decide not to run, Warren could change her mind, or any number of unpredictable events that tend to scramble presidential races could upend the Democratic field. But, so far, there's little sign that many Democrats are thirsting for a Clinton alternative. In Iowa, for instance, she is the top candidate for 53 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, according to a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll. That's roughly five times bigger than Warren, who followed with 10 percent support as a first pick of party insiders. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and independent, and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who've expressed interest in running, trailed behind at three and one percent, respectively. "If she chooses to run, and I hope she does, I think she will have no significant opposition," said Ted Strickland, the former Ohio Governor who now heads the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the advocacy arm of a liberal think tank. "I'm not saying there won't be a primary contest but I don't see any reasonable possibility that she could be denied the Democratic nomination." Strickland, along with other Clinton-backers, sees commercial motives in the Draft Warren effort. "If someone has said they are not a candidate for president, period, is it respectful or disrespectful to use that person's name for their own purposes?" asked Des Moines lawyer Jerry Crawford, who co-chaired Clinton's 2008 campaign in Iowa and helps lead Ready for Hillary, a group laying the groundwork for a campaign, in the state. "If Secretary Clinton said she wasn't running, I wouldn't be out there disrespecting her by engaging in a draft movement." Unlike the Tea Party, which remains a powerful force in the Republican party, the influence of progressive groups has waned during the Obama years. With the Senate soon to be in Republican control, progressives aspire to become their own power center that can force Democrats to stand strong on economic issues. By aligning themselves with Warren, who’s an outspoken advocate of Wall Street regulation, groups like MoveOn not only grow membership lists and bank accounts, they also raise their profile. “Could there be some self-serving motives behind this? Of course," said Strickland. "If you're not engaged in some kind of specific effort, it's a little more difficult to keep support coming in." While Warren is their billboard, the real target is likely Clinton. A history of pro-business economic policies and a roster of rich Wall Street donors make progressive and union activists anxious about the direction of her leadership and political loyalties. Though she has yet to announce a campaign, they're trying to send the message that their concerns should not be taken for granted. "I think the fact that people are encouraging a person who probably isn't going to run may just be a manifestation of wanting to make clear that Secretary Clinton is not going to walk in and assume there's a coronation," said Stern. "She's going to have to work it policy-wise, particularly on the economy" That's no surprise, given that most Democrats have already turned their attention to Clinton. Operatives are jockeying for jobs. Donors are eager to open their wallets. And politicians are rushing to position themselves for a campaign that doesn't yet exist. Why should her progressive opposition be any different? *National Journal: “Elizabeth Warren: The GOP's New Favorite Foil” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/elizabeth-warren-the-gop-s-new-favorite-foil-20141211>* By Sarah Mimms December 11, 2014 With congressional compromises collapsing all around them and facing a pending government shutdown, Republicans are testing a new message: Blame it all on Elizabeth Warren. In less than 24 hours this week, two bicameral deals over must-pass legislation appeared near collapse. Congress needs to extend federal funding if it wants to keep the government running, and it is also facing the expiration of a terrorism insurance program that lawmakers from both parties are set on extending. But both deals hit turmoil in their final hours, in part over planned additions to the legislative packages that would pull back parts of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulation law. As stalemates loom, Republicans aren't putting blame for the impasse on Harry Reid, or on Nancy Pelosi, or even on President Obama. They're targeting Warren: One Republican aide griped anonymously to Politico that if the deals collapsed, it was because of Warren's influence over the rest of the party. How much power the Massachusetts Democrat has over negotiations, however, is an open question. Staffers on both sides of the aisle involved in the discussions over the omnibus spending bill and Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) say Warren was not party to any of those talks. Instead, Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Chuck Schumer lead those negotiations, respectively. And given Warren's frantic reaction to the provisions when they became public this week, it appears she was just as shocked by last-minute changes to Dodd-Frank as everyone else. Republicans say Warren is responsible nonetheless. "Being present in the room is not necessary to have your presence felt," Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer explained. "Every leading Democrat feels like Elizabeth Warren is looking over their shoulder to go further to the left." The swiftness with which Republicans blamed Warren signals that they see her as both a threat and an easy target. And as Warren's star rises within the Democratic Party, it's a tactic that promises to see much more airtime. Warren was recently named to Democratic leadership (she won't actually take her seat in soon-to-be Minority Leader Reid's office until January) and while she's repeatedly said whe won't run for president, she's often mentioned as a potential contender in the race—though not unless Hillary Clinton takes a pass. But she has no committee chairmanships and, for now, little real power in the Senate. Warren is the least-senior senior senator in Congress, having served for less than two years. Republicans see Warren as a way to paint the Democratic Party as increasingly beholden to its liberal wing and removed from moderates. (Democrats take the same tact with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, often referring to the Texan as "Speaker Cruz" to imply that his wishes hold sway in the House.) Warren is hardly the only Dodd-Frank champion among congressional Democrats. And she's far from alone in opposing the changes pushed by Republicans this week. Liberal icons like Sen. Sherrod Brown and even Wall Street-aligned Democrats like Schumer oppose the Dodd-Frank reforms. "It's not unique to her," one senior Democratic aide said, adding that many Democrats see using the deals to reopen Dodd-Frank as a nonstarter. "I don't think her being outspoken on it has made other people outspoken." But other members of the Democratic Conference in the Senate aren't seen as rising stars the way Warren is. Few are considered potential presidential candidates. And none serves as well in the role of liberal specter over the next two years as Warren will, particularly now that she is a member of leadership. "The more exposure she gets, the better for us," Spicer said. Warren could easily become a poster-woman for the Democratic Party over the next two years, he argued, serving the same purpose as Pelosi and Reid have in Republican advertising and strategy. Of course, Warren isn't as well known as Pelosi or Reid—and certainly not Hillary Clinton—and the Republican focus on her will only serve to increase her national profile, as she contemplates moving up in the political sphere. But Republicans argue that Warren's popularity is limited to a specific constituency; sure, she could do well among Democrats, but she'd have a hard time appealing to the center. In highlighting her, Republicans are betting that the negatives will outweigh the positives. "You're building them up, but in the process of building them up you're making them so unviable," Spicer said. "If you told me today that Hillary Clinton had announced that she isn't running [for president] and Elizabeth Warren is, I would be doing the biggest jig in my office." But the senior Democratic aide simply pointed to the 2014 elections, when Warren traveled the country on behalf of Democratic candidates, drawing huge crowds. "Look at how many people show up when she goes and campaigns, even in red states," the aide said. "She has the pulse of what people are anxious about ... that there's a system that is working against growing wages and better-paying jobs. And that's exactly why people are crying out for. And that's why she resonates in Massachusetts, that's why she gets invited to places like West Virginia, Kentucky. She has a message for all audiences. It's a universal message." Republicans plan to use that very message against Warren. Republican pollster David Winston notes that in 2008, exit polls showed that Americans felt that government should do more by an 8-point margin. In the wake of the 2014 midterm elections, that number flipped significantly; Americans now prefer that government do less by a 13-point margin. "[Warren's] whole focus is government being the solution. What she's saying and what the public is saying are two different things," Winston said. Democrats disagree. In a speech last month at the National Press Club, Schumer mounted a strong defense of a pro-government Democratic Party, pointing to Gallup polling that has shown that about a third of Americans prefer a more active government, a third prefer less government intervention, and a third want something in the middle. Those numbers have hardly changed since 2010. Warren, who will work under Schumer when she joins the leadership team, is a key part of spreading that message. Warren's promotion to leadership only reinforces the idea that she speaks for the party as a whole, Winston and Spicer said. And as she gains influence within the conference, they say, it only helps Republicans. "I understand why Harry Reid and Democrats put her in leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if a year or more from now they regret that," Spicer said. But Warren's influence isn't limited to just the Senate. Pelosi forwarded a copy of Warren's entire floor speech on her objections to the Dodd-Frank provision in the omnibus to reporters Wednesday. And the grassroots effort lead by MoveOn.Org, Ready for Warren, and other liberal groups to draft Warren to run for president is only raising her profile even higher. Warren is hardly walking away from that position. She spoke at length on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying she would vote against the omnibus spending bill that will keep the government's doors open over the Dodd-Frank provision. She has worked tirelessly over the past few days to unite Democrats in the House and Senate around the issue, even holding a press conference with colleagues in the House urging Democrats in the lower chamber to pull their support from the bill until the Dodd-Frank language is removed. And House Democrats did just that, forcing Republican leadership to pull the omnibus at the last minute and huddle with their members over how to pass the bill with just hours remaining before a scheduled government shutdown. Warren wasn't alone in her opposition to the Dodd-Frank changes, but she was among the most vocal. For Republicans, that's good enough. *Boston Globe: “Mass. group hopes to give Clinton a headstart” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/12/11/mass-group-hopes-give-clinton-headstart/WaIrJmI3QZj9AswwY0D0AK/story.html>* By David Scharfenberg December 12, 2014 Hillary Rodham Clinton has not yet declared for president. But more than a few politicos are working to build the scaffolding for her campaign. Ready for Hillary and Priorities USA Action, super PACs stacked with high-profile supporters, have grabbed headlines. But several other, smaller groups have sprouted, too. There’s Faith Voters for Hillary. There’s Hillarypac (and its mortal enemy, Stop Hillary PAC). Another committee, Stand for Hillary, recently deployed a singing cowboy in an online video. Now, a new entrant from Massachusetts: Sign for Hillary. The online venture, which went live Thursday afternoon, has a very specific mission: giving Clinton a headstart on the laborious process of collecting signatures to get on the ballot in Democratic primaries all over the country. The signforhillary.com approach is pretty simple. Step one: Get Clinton supporters to commit in advance to signing a petition in the 20 states that require or allow candidates to collect signatures (17 states require them, according to Sign for Hillary’s count, while three others allow candidates to compile them in lieu of paying a filing fee to get on the ballot). Step two: If and when Clinton formally declares, send out the nomination papers to be signed and mailed back. “I’ve never seen it done anywhere,” said Harold Hubschman, a Sign for Hillary cofounder who owns a professional signature-collecting firm. “And I’ve been looking.” The states that require signatures (Massachusetts is not one of them) ask for relatively few. In Alabama, it’s 500. In Virginia, it’s 5,000. But there are some tricky provisions. Several states, for instance, require a certain number of signatures from each of their congressional districts. And quite a few mainstream presidential candidates have failed to make a primary ballot for one reason or another. In 2012, Republicans Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Jon Hunstman Jr. all failed to qualify in Virginia. Perry campaign officials testified in court that an employee of a firm the campaign hired to collect signatures came up short after falling into a diabetic coma. Sign for Hillary organizers, who hope to collect 100,000 signatures, say they’re sure Clinton’s political machine would be up to the task. But they figure there’s no harm in giving the nascent campaign a headstart. And they say the effort, if successful, will free up Clinton campaign volunteers to do other work. Arline Isaacson, a veteran lobbyist and gay rights advocate involved with Sign for Hillary, adds that the project — which advisers plan to hand over to the Clinton campaign if she declares — will be collecting names and addresses that could be of value for fund-raising and other purposes. “We’re not just getting any Tom, Dick, and Harry to sign a petition, which is what you do in most states — you stand out there with a clipboard and you get anyone who’s willing to come along and sign a paper,” she said. “Everyone signing this is a genuine, bonafide, card-carrying Hillary supporter.” Hubschman said he and Sign for Hillary cofounder James E. Fleming, another veteran political operative, had long been kicking around the idea of a Web-driven effort to identify petition signers in advance. And the expected Clinton campaign, he said, seemed like the perfect place to start. The former senator and secretary of state, he said, “is a force of nature right now in Democratic politics” and her potential candidacy provided a good opportunity “to go viral.” Richard Goldstein, legal counsel for Sign for Hillary, said there is nothing in the law to prevent Clinton from absorbing the group or designating it an official affiliated committee if she declares. But any donations individuals make to Sign for Hillary would count against the maximum they can give to Clinton herself. Sign for Hillary officials are capping donations at $99, so as not to compete with a possible Clinton campaign. Hubschman said he hopes the Clinton campaign will let Sign for Hillary continue to run the operation if she declares. But he insisted he’s not angling for any paid work with the campaign. He said he simply believes that Clinton would make a great president. He and the singing cowboy. *Politico: “Backers: Romney more open to 2016 run” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/mitt-romney-2016-run-113518.html>* By Ben White and Maggie Haberman December 11, 2014, 6:25 p.m. EST For most of the past year, Mitt Romney supporters have publicly said he should consider running again. And for most of the past year, Romney has seemed uninterested. Until recently. While some people close to Romney insist he hasn’t moved from saying he has no plans to run, the 2012 Republican nominee has sounded at least open to the idea in recent conversations, according to more than a dozen people who’ve spoken with him in the last month. In his private musings, Romney has sounded less than upbeat about most of the potential candidates in the 2016 Republican field, according to the people who’ve spoken with him, all of whom asked for anonymity in order to speak freely. He has assessed various people’s strengths and weaknesses dispassionately, wearing what one ally called his “consultant cap” to measure the field. He has said, among other things, that Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, would run into problems because of his business dealings, his work with the investment banks Lehman Brothers and Barclays, and his private equity investments. “You saw what they did to me with Bain [Capital],” he has said, referring to the devastating attacks that his Republican rivals and President Obama’s team launched against him for his time in private equity, according to three sources familiar with the line. “What do you think they’ll do to [Bush] over Barclays?” Romney did not respond to a request for comment left with his son’s firm, Solemere Capital, where the former Massachusetts governor serves as an adviser. Spencer Zwick, finance chair of Romney’s 2012 campaign chairman and now a senior executive at Solamere, declined to comment on any discussions Romney may have had with investors or anyone else about 2016. “I’d very much like him to run and think he would make a great president and a lot of people who supported him in 2012 and even those who did not support him want him to run,” Zwick said. “That doesn’t mean he will run.” For most of the past year, even Republicans who admire Romney have believed the chatter about him possibly running for president has been mostly sparked by his former staffers or people involved with Solemere, seeing it as a boon for business. Romney’s new tone in discussions with people behind closed doors came as Bush has seemed to move closer toward a run. A number of donors and operatives who had assumed Bush would take a pass now believe he is likely to enter the race. People close to Romney stressed that he has deep respect for Bush. “He thinks Gov. Bush was a good governor,” said one source close to Romney, who added that the former Massachusetts governor has still maintained he has no plans to run. However, the source added, there is a “growing chorus” of people who would like to see him do it again. “There’s a core group of people around Mitt who think he should take another stab at it,” said the source. That has grown to include some former donors, who have told other candidates that they are waiting to see what Romney does. With a crowded GOP field expected to take shape, the stance also buys donors time to decide on a candidate. Those people say Romney has felt vindicated by many of the events of the past two years, such as Russia’s incursion into Ukraine. Most Republicans still doubt that Romney would subject himself to a third grueling national run. They believe he is basking in the praise of his supporters, after the sharp disappoint of his 2012 loss, for which he was vilified by some Republicans at the time. He was widely seen as running a feckless campaign, marked by overcaution and the questionable strategy of making his business record a centerpiece of his bid. But top Wall Street executives who met with Romney on his recent trip to New York said they came away from the sit-downs – which mostly focused on Solemere, his son Tagg’s Solamere investment firm – more convinced the 2012 nominee was thinking about another run. “I came away from the conversation with the distinct impression that he was running and that he did not think anyone in the field right now was particularly strong,” said one top executive who met with Romney and requested not to be identified while speaking about a private conversation. “It sounded like he felt he could win, and that the country had turned in his direction and he looks at the field and does not see anyone who does not look very beatable,” said the executive. This executive and another who met with Romney said they were struck by the former Massachusetts governor’s comments about Bush, who is also strongly considering a run. These executives said Romney indicated that he would not defer to Bush as the standard-bearer of the establishment wing of the Republican Party. They also said Romney indicated that Bush would run into even more issues about his business dealings than Romney did over his private equity fortune in 2012. Bush’s latest investment funds, according to a Bloomberg Businessweek story published Thursday, include offshore tax havens and Chinese investors — an indication they would be an ongoing focus if the former Florida governor enters the race. (A Bush aide said in an email that “there are no offshore tax havens” and called the story’s conclusion “a huge and inappropriate leap.”) As for Romney, he “tells people not to commit to a candidate that is not their first choice and that they aren’t excited about,” said the second executive, who was involved in the meetings. “He does not think much of the current field and does not think it is jelling. He still views himself as the leader of the establishment wing of the Republican Party. He does not feel he owes the Bushes anything and does not think Jeb is the de facto leader of the establishment GOP.” Among the people Romney has spoken with recently is casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, according to three people familiar with the encounter. Adelson single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich alive against Romney in the 2012 GOP primary through a super PAC, before giving $30 million to a pro-Romney group after he clinched the nomination. Another person close to Romney said that the former governor’s “body language” is different now and he is “certainly taking a harder look” at getting in the 2016 race. Still, one Romney supporter cautioned that people who want him to run sometimes hear what they want to hear in the former governor’s comments. Nonetheless, several people have noticed a change in tone, which comes after Romney previously indicated to people that he would only get into the race under an extreme circumstance in which party leaders drafted him during an inconclusive primary process. “In September he said to me that he’s run twice and now it’s other people’s turn,” said Bobbie Kilberg, a GOP fund-raiser in Virginia who is hoping Republicans can coalesce early around a single center-right establishment candidate. People who believe Romney has shifted in his thinking said they are unclear about whether he would attempt to run regardless of the field, or whether he would wait to see how Bush and other candidates fare. Another top Republican operative who is supportive of a Jeb Bush candidacy said that he did not believe Bush would have as much trouble with his financial dealings in a campaign as Romney did. “Jeb’s wealth and investments are nothing on the scale of Romney’s. He is not building car elevators,” this person said, offering a hint of the bitterness that could ensue if both Romney and Bush run. Indeed, Bush, for his part, has begun conducting opposition research on himself to identify any potential issues that could arise, a standard move for potential candidates but nonetheless one that indicates his level of seriousness about the process, two people familiar with his plans said. He has also had discussions about how he would get out of his business ventures. Indeed, one Bush supporter said the former Florida governor would be far more proactive than Romney was in responding to attacks about his business record, which Romney made central to his run. There will be “no fetal position” from Bush, said the source, a reference to Romney’s decision to wait until he had been defined by Democrats to start hitting back and defining himself. *Politico: “Ex-Obama aide makes Warren-2016 push” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/christopher-hass-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-113524.html>* By Maggie Haberman December 11, 2014, 10:19 p.m. EST A former campaign aide to President Barack Obama who is volunteering with a super PAC trying to draft Democrat Elizabeth Warren to run for president says he’s gathered “in the hundreds” of signatures from fellow Obama alumni to prod the Massachusetts senator into the race. The onetime aide, Christopher Hass, has circulated the letter on an Obama alumni email group and said it will be released on Friday. The letter comes after the progressive group MoveOn.org announced this week it is spending $1 million to try to draft Warren into the race and challenge likely candidate Hillary Clinton. Ready for Warren, the draft effort, has struggled to raise money after disavowed them publicly. The first-term senator has said repeatedly she will not run for president. “Some of you may have already seen this passed around by other Obama folks over the past few days, but I wanted to make sure as many fellow OFA alumni as possible had a chance to see and take part,” Hass, who recently served as digital director for Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn’s failed reelection bid, wrote on the email list. “Later this week, a public letter is going to be released with the names of former OFA staffers who are urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president.” He added: “This is born out of a lot of things — not just affection for Warren (though there’s plenty of that) but also the desire for there to be a real, competitive primary in 2016 that will make our party, our eventual candidate, and our country stronger. I’ve seen the list of signers, and there’s a lot of great people on it. If you want to add your name, today is your last chance.” “We helped elect Barack Obama — now we’re calling on Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016,” Hass’ letter states. “We know that the improbable is far from impossible.” The letter states that former Obama campaign staffers and Organizing for America aides are making the pro-Warren push. “Rising income inequality is the challenge of our times, and we want someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that took down our economy,” the letter says. Just after the burst of activity around Warren this week, former presidential hopeful Howard Dean wrote an op-ed in POLITICO explaining why he is supporting Clinton. The pro-Warren moves were made by a group he founded, Democracy for America. But Dean wrote that he expects Clinton to talk about income inequality and the middle class if she runs. The various groups’ efforts to lure Warren into the race, as improbable as their success may be, serve an additional purpose — boosting their own fundraising and email lists. Some Obama allies have seen Warren as the person likeliest to run a campaign using his 2008 formula. But Obama had crossover appeal with Democratic voters that Warren does not, and he had made clear by this point in 2006 that he was seriously considering launching a campaign. By contrast, Warren signed a letter with other Democratic women senators urging Clinton to run. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · December 15 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton discusses closing gender data gaps with Michael Bloomberg (AP <https://twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/542345675493892096>) · December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html> ) · 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>)