podesta_email_21048.txt

podesta-emails 8,735 words email

P17 D6 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 January 9, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Bloomberg: “Bush Team Sets Bold Fundraising Goal: $100 Million in Three Months” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-09/bush-team-sets-bold-fundraising-goal-100-million-in-three-months>* [Subtitle:] “The former Florida governor is looking to send a message to the rest of the potential field.” *Politico: “Axelrod: Clinton ‘wasn’t a very good candidate’ in 2007” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/david-axelrod-hillary-clinton-elections-114101.html>* "After Iowa, Clinton rebounded to win the New Hampshire primary, setting off a neck-and-neck contest with Obama that didn’t end for nearly five more months." *New York Times: “Experts Say That Battle on Keystone Pipeline Is Over Politics, Not Facts” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/us/senate-panel-approves-keystone-pipeline-bill.html>* “Neither pipeline was an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, nor did the Keystone pipeline draw much attention in the next few years as the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reviewed the project.” *Bloomberg: “Bush, Warren Agree: The Clinton Era Has Problems” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/bush-warren-agree-the-clinton-era-has-problems>* “The nod to Hillary Clinton, Obama's top diplomat from 2009 to 2013, comes as Bush moves closer to a White House bid while Clinton continues mulling one.” *Politico Magazine: Jill Lawrence, Al Jazeera America writer: “Why Warren Won’t Run” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-wont-run-114088.html#.VK_Ep_ldWSo>* “Being president, or even just running for president, would dilute what the left loves best about Warren and also, perhaps, what the nation needs most from her.” *Capital New York: “Not ready for Hillary just yet” <http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/01/8559712/not-ready-hillary-just-yet>* “There are plenty of Democratic elected officials like [New York City’s public advocate Letitia] James in Hillary Clinton’s adopted home state, ones who were in the vast majority of the local political firmament that supported Clinton last time and are eager to wave the flag ahead of any official announcement of her presumptive bid for president. There are also, for now, plenty who aren't.” *Time: “Bernie Sanders: Class Warrior for President” <http://time.com/3660515/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign/>* “During an hour-long visit to TIME’s Washington Bureau on Thursday, the junior Senator from Vermont, self-described ‘Democratic socialist’ and incoming ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee laid out his vision for a presidential campaign, with all the requisite qualifications since he has yet to make a final decision on running.” *The Hill: “O'Malley to decide on 2016 run by spring” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/228991-omalley-to-decide-on-2016-run-by-spring>* “Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley on Thursday said he will decide in the spring whether to run for president in 2016, possibly becoming a rival to likely Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.” *BuzzFeed: “Martin O’Malley Knocks Brown Campaign For Not Defending His Record” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/martin-omalley-knocks-brown-campaign-for-not-defending-his-r#.fvP2498VvQ>* “But as he considers a bid for the Democratic nomination, another race still casts a shadow over O’Malley’s next move: the loss last fall of Anthony Brown, his lieutenant governor and hand-picked successor, to Larry Hogan, the Republican businessman few thought could win in a state considered left-leaning.” *Articles:* *Bloomberg: “Bush Team Sets Bold Fundraising Goal: $100 Million in Three Months” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-09/bush-team-sets-bold-fundraising-goal-100-million-in-three-months>* By Michael C. Bender and Jonathan Allen January 9, 2015, 5:50 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] The former Florida governor is looking to send a message to the rest of the potential field. Jeb Bush's allies are setting a fundraising goal of $100 million in the first three months of this year—including a whopping $25 million haul in Florida—in an effort to winnow the potential Republican presidential primary field with an audacious display of financial strength. The targets were confirmed by multiple Republican sources involved in finance meetings with Bush's team. They requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. One said the point is to persuade some establishment candidates to stay on the sidelines in the 2016 race. The attempt to intimidate the wide-open field with a shock-and-awe fundraising machine echoes the strategy Bush's brother, former President George W. Bush, used to win the White House in 2000. In 1999, then-Texas Governor Bush raised $37 million in the first half of the year and $29 million in the third quarter, breaking records and pressuring other contenders, such as Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle, John Kasich, and Lamar Alexander, to end their campaigns swiftly or decide not to start one. Even coming close to the $100 million goal would send a similar message to Jeb Bush's potential rivals, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, and would have the added benefit of locking up some of the party's most formidable fundraisers and donors. Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said the former Florida governor's internal documents show different targets. "These alleged goals are not accurate," Campbell said, declining to elaborate on the differences. "Governor Bush has not had a political organization until now. He is just in the initial days of reaching out to people and making plans to support conservative causes and conservative candidates in the coming months." The sources said the goals are being featured in presentations the nascent Bush operation to donors in Florida, Texas, and New York. Bush will kick off the Florida effort next week with a fundraiser at the Orlando-area home of C. David Brown, a corporate and government transactions attorney who was Bush's choice for state transportation commissioner in 2000. The event is expected to raise at least $1 million, as are other events scheduled or being planned for Tampa, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, and Palm Beach, Republican sources said. The gathering in Orlando highlights Bush's early advantages as he weighs whether to run for president. The brother of one former president and son of another, he has a nationwide fundraising network that his family assembled over decades. Brown, the Orlando event host, was a top fundraiser for George W. Bush's two presidential campaigns. Jeb Bush, who was Florida's governor from 1999 to 2007, remains popular in his home state, which is traditionally one of the largest sources of cash for presidential candidates. In the 2012 election, White House contenders—mostly Republicans—collected $50 million in Florida, making it the fourth most generous state, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political giving. Bush launched a pair of fundraising committees earlier this week, including one that can collect unlimited donations, and has been meeting with donors for several weeks. Heather Larrison, the National Republican Senatorial Committee finance director for last year's election and head of former Louisiana Governor Haley Barbour's leadership PAC, is overseeing the national fundraising operations. Ann Herberger, Bush's former Florida finance director and a consultant for Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, will be deeply involved. This week, Bush visited with financial backers from KKR and Bridgewater Associates, a pair of New York-based investment firms, and held a fundraiser Wednesday in Greenwich, Conn. He's also met with contributors in Miami, Chicago and Dallas, and will return to Texas later this month for what one donor characterized as an organizational meeting. On Friday, Bush is expected to travel to Boston for more meetings before returning to Miami. Jack Oliver, former President George W. Bush's 2004 finance director, told Bloomberg Politics last month that Republican primary candidates will need to have raised $100 million by the end of 2015; Bush's allies aim to hit that target in a single quarter. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is considering running for president, told the Washington Times that he hopes to raise at least $25 million by the first week of February. Christie is a proven fundraiser, raising a record $106 million in his two years as head of the Republican Governors Association, but he has complications as a sitting governor. The Securities and Exchange Commission rules prohibit some of Wall Street's biggest donors from giving money to governors. Bush, out of office for eight years, has no such problem. *Politico: “Axelrod: Clinton ‘wasn’t a very good candidate’ in 2007” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/david-axelrod-hillary-clinton-elections-114101.html>* By Jonathan Topaz January 8, 2015, 8:18 p.m. EST David Axelrod on Thursday jabbed at Hillary Clinton, saying that she wasn’t a very strong candidate during the first part of her campaign for the 2008 presidential nomination. The chief strategist for Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign said that Clinton, who lost to Obama in the Democratic primary that year, was too cautious during the early stages, when she was considered the prohibitive favorite. “When you play not to lose, you often lose. And my perception of Secretary Clinton was that she wasn’t a very good candidate in 2007,” Axelrod said at a Thursday evening event at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, where he serves as director. The comments preceded a conversation with outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has said repeatedly that he is considering a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. Axelrod said he thought that once Clinton came in third in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, she became a much more formidable candidate. “[O]nce she wasn’t the frontrunner anymore, once she was fighting for her place, she threw all the caution away and I think she started relating to voters in a much more visceral way that reflected who she really is,” Axelrod said. “If I had any advice for her, it would be: Be that person.” After Iowa, Clinton rebounded to win the New Hampshire primary, setting off a neck-and-neck contest with Obama that didn’t end for nearly five more months. Axelrod also said that Clinton failed to provide a convincing rationale for her candidacy in her unsuccessful bid, echoing a criticism he made in November. “In 2007, the mistake they made was they allowed the candidacy to get out ahead of the rationale for it,” he said of Clinton’s team. “It wasn’t clear what the campaign was about. And I think campaigns have to be about something,” Axelrod added. The strategist, who served for a time as White House senior adviser during Obama’s first term, said that presidential candidates on both sides in 2016 will need to fashion a message on middle-class economic issues and stagnant wages. Clinton has not yet made a public decision on whether she will run for the Democratic nomination. Axelrod said he doesn’t believe she has made up her mind, but that if she chooses to run, she will be in a “more dominant” position to win the primary than any candidate in his lifetime. Still, Axelrod said that Clinton proved she was “vulnerable” in her primary loss to Obama and that she will need to avoid the “inevitability trap” to earn the 2016 nod. *New York Times: “Experts Say That Battle on Keystone Pipeline Is Over Politics, Not Facts” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/us/senate-panel-approves-keystone-pipeline-bill.html>* By Coral Davenport January 8, 2015 WASHINGTON — In 2009, the Obama administration approved a 986-mile pipeline to bring 400,000 barrels of oil sands petroleum a day from western Canada to the United States. Almost no one paid attention. Construction on the pipeline, called the Alberta Clipper, was quietly completed last year. In that same period, the administration considered construction of a similar project, the Keystone XL. So far only in the blueprint stage, this pipeline has become an explosive political issue that Republicans are seizing as their first challenge to President Obama in the new Congress. The Republican-controlled House is set to pass a bill to force approval of Keystone on Friday and the Senate is expected to pass the measure in coming weeks. Republicans say the pipeline will create jobs and spur the economy while environmentalists and some Democrats say it will destroy pristine forests and create carbon pollution. Mr. Obama has vowed to veto the bill. But most energy and policy experts say the battle over Keystone overshadows the importance of the project as an environmental threat or an engine of the economy. The pipeline will have little effect, they say, on climate change, production of the Canadian oil sands, gasoline prices and the overall job market in the United States. At the same time, Mr. Obama’s promised veto will not necessarily kill the pipeline because the president will retain the authority to make a final decision about its fate. “The political fight about Keystone is vastly greater than the economic, environmental or energy impact of the pipeline itself,” said Robert N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard. “It doesn’t make a big difference in energy prices, employment, or climate change either way.” Environmentalists who have been arrested outside the White House protesting Keystone say that extracting petroleum from the Canadian oil sands produces more carbon emissions than conventional oil production and that the pipeline will provide a conduit to market for the oil. But a State Department review of the project last year concluded that building the pipeline would not significantly increase the rate of carbon pollution in the atmosphere because the oil is already making its way to market by existing pipelines and rail. Republicans promote the project as a major source of employment and an economic engine, but the State Department review estimated that Keystone would support only about 35 permanent jobs. Keystone would create about 42,000 temporary jobs over the two years it will take to build it — about 3,900 of them in construction and the rest are in indirect support jobs, such as food service. In comparison, there were 241,000 new jobs created in December alone. Over all, the jobs represented by Keystone account than for less one-tenth of 1 percent of the American economy. “This pipeline has become a symbolic issue all out of proportion to reality,” said Robert McNally, the president of the Rapidan Group, a Washington-based energy consulting firm and a former top energy official in the George W. Bush administration. “Why is what ought to be a routine matter turned into an all-consuming Armageddon battle?” The story of how a routine pipeline became such a politically volatile infrastructure project began during the George W. Bush administration, when the companies that hoped to build both the Alberta Clipper and the Keystone XL submitted their permit applications to the State Department. Neither pipeline was an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, nor did the Keystone pipeline draw much attention in the next few years as the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reviewed the project. By the summer of 2011, top State Department officials signaled that they were on the verge of approving the pipeline. That was when environmentalists, led by an activist named Bill McKibben, made their move. Disappointed that Mr. Obama had failed to pass a climate change bill in his first term, they wanted to push him on environmental issues. They settled on the pipeline as their symbol and in that summer of 2011 staged the White House protests demanding that Mr. Obama stop Keystone. They hoped to send the message that by approving the pipeline, Mr. Obama would lose the support of his political base in the 2012 re-election. The State Department delayed the decision. In those protests, Republicans saw an opening. “When folks started to get arrested outside the White House, it was obvious something was going on,” said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who frequently consults on political strategy with House Republican leaders. In their internal polls on the issue, the strategists found that Americans generally supported the project — often by a ratio of 3 to 1, Mr. McKenna said. Those numbers bear out today: A November poll by Pew Research found that 59 percent of Americans supported the project. “We saw that this thing could be a killer for us,” Mr. McKenna said. “It’s easy to grab on to. It’s a simple narrative. It’s easy to explain to candidates and easy for them to turn around and explain to voters.” Republican consultants advised candidates to take on the issue, and the candidates did. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, promised to approve the Keystone on his first day in office. Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group with financial ties to the billionaire libertarians Charles and David Koch, criticized Mr. Obama’s delay of the Keystone decision in their first ad in the 2012 campaign season. Two years later, Republican candidates for the House and Senate aired about 10,000 ads featuring the Keystone pipeline, according to data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG, a political media analysis firm. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, frequently mentions his support of Keystone as a centerpiece of a possible job creation plan. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the new majority leader, vowed that his first bill on the Senate floor would be a forced approval of Keystone. The political fight over Keystone will probably last a long time. Mr. Obama has said he will issue a final decision on the project only after a Nebraska court issues a verdict on a dispute over the pipeline’s proposed route through that state. Then the State Department will complete its additional environmental review, which could push the decision back for months, if not years. Until then, Mr. McKibben and his fellow environmentalists will continue to push on the issue and hope to claim a symbolic victory if Mr. Obama vetoes the project. “It does not solve climate change if we stop Keystone,” Mr. McKibben said. “But if we build out the oil sands, it’s an enormous quantity of carbon that won’t leave the ground. If the president blocks Keystone XL, he becomes the first world leader to say, ‘Here’s a project we’re not doing because of its effect on the climate.’ ” But the oil will continue to flow out of Canada with or without the Keystone. “There are several oil pipelines that cross the Canadian border, and the oil is already moving to market through them,” said Christine Tezak, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington consulting firm. “It seems strange that we’re going through such gyrations over this particular piece of infrastructure, when the State Department said, ‘Oh, sure’ to the Alberta Clipper.” *Bloomberg: “Bush, Warren Agree: The Clinton Era Has Problems” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/bush-warren-agree-the-clinton-era-has-problems>* By Annie Linskey January 8, 2015 3:57 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] A high-profile Republican and Democrat each take aim. Potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush and firebrand liberal Senator Elizabeth Warren found a common target this week: The Clinton era, ranging from Bill Clinton's presidency to Hillary Clinton's State Department tenure. Bush's barbs occurred behind closed doors at a fundraiser for his new political action committee in Greenwich, Conn., on Wednesday. He never mentioned Hillary Clinton by name, according to a person who attended the fundraiser, but he was asked about what many in the room considered President Barack Obama's failed foreign policy. Bush said there would only be one 2016 contender associated with Obama's foreign policy, said the attendee, who declined to be named since the event was closed to the press. The nod to Hillary Clinton, Obama's top diplomat from 2009 to 2013, comes as Bush moves closer to a White House bid while Clinton continues mulling one. Bush was also asked about his family connections to the presidency and whether he would have considered running if Clinton weren't likely to join the race, since their shared legacy liabilities could cancel each other out. Bush said his candidacy would be about the future, not the past, according to the attendee. He tried to distinguish himself from the other presidents in his family, saying he loves his father and brother but is a different person. He also quipped about Florida creating more jobs than any other state during his tenure as governor—including Texas, the state his brother led. He repeatedly used the word inclusive to describe how his potential campaign would reach out to groups that haven't flocked to the GOP in the past, specifically Hispanics and Asians, according to the attendee. The fundraiser audience also asked him about his stance on Common Core education standards and immigration, which could be hot-button topics in the Republican primary. Kristy Campbell, a Bush spokeswoman, declined to comment on his remarks. Meanwhile in Washington on Wednesday, Warren used a speech to an AFL-CIO summit on raising the minimum wage to highlight a different Clinton's policies. She railed against the “trickle-down economics” that started in the 1980s and slammed the deregulation policies that marked Bill Clinton's presidency. Like Bush, Warren did not mention the Clintons by name. “Pretty much the whole Republican Party—and, if we’re going to be honest, too many Democrats—talked about the evils of big government and called for deregulation,” Warren said She took pains to make clear who she wasn't talking about: Bush's father. “George Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics,” Warren said. “He was right.” Her speech reflected the discontent with which many in the audience remember the last few decades. “The top 10 percent got all the growth in income over the past 30 years—all of it—and the economy stopped working for everyone else,” Warren said. *Politico Magazine: Jill Lawrence, Al Jazeera America writer: “Why Warren Won’t Run” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-wont-run-114088.html#.VK_Ep_ldWSo>* By Jill Lawrence January 8, 2015 Love her or hate her, Elizabeth Warren knows exactly who she is. When she took tennis lessons years ago, Warren hit so many balls over fences, hedges and buildings that her instructor—now her husband—considered her his worst student ever. “Once I had a weapon in my hand, I gave it everything I had,” she explained in her autobiography. Today, the Massachusetts senator is deploying seemingly every political weapon at her disposal in defense of the middle class—and, in typical fashion, giving it everything she’s got. Aggressive, intense, single-minded—she is all of these, and that’s why she’s considered such a formidable advocate for families trying to survive on what she calls “the ragged edge.” But for all the same reasons, Warren would be miscast in the roles of presidential contender and president—and why would liberals want her to take that road, anyway? Warren’s attention would be diverted in a thousand different directions by a campaign. If she somehow managed to dethrone Hillary Clinton and win the White House, say good-bye to public dressings-down of Wall Street executives at Senate hearings and—most likely—to no-holds-barred attacks on “sleazy lobbyists,” “cowardly politicians” and banks that cheat families. Being president, or even just running for president, would dilute what the left loves best about Warren and also, perhaps, what the nation needs most from her. Being speculated about as a candidate for president, on the other hand, sometimes can be useful. Back in 1991, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia told me he did not discourage speculation about a run for president because he was thrilled by the attention it generated for his ideas on health policy. So it is with Warren. She 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. And her record so far suggests she knows it. Warren often seems exasperated by all the presidential talk—and at the end of 2013, she pledged to serve out her Senate term—but more recently she has been playing a minimalist version of the speculation game. She is sounding less certain about what’s ahead, and she consistently uses the present tense in her repeated denials of interest, conspicuously avoiding a Shermanesque vow never, ever to run or serve. Even these slight openings have been succor for the draft-Warren movement launched last month by MoveOn.org and Democracy for America. Giving the keynote this week at the AFL-CIO’s first National Summit on Wages, Warren also sounded like she was consciously leading a national movement, repeatedly declaring “what we believe” is needed to take back the economy from politicians who “made deliberate choices that favored those with money and power.” Yet if one looks more closely at what Warren is doing than what she is saying, very little of it suggests that she is thinking about the presidency at all. She has doubled down on her longtime causes instead of broadening her portfolio in ways that are typical preparation for a presidential run. Her rhetoric, meanwhile, is as sharp and confrontational as ever. Congress should have “broken you into pieces,” Warren said of Citigroup recently on the Senate floor. In one of her final fundraising emails of 2014, she vowed to continue her fight for “accountability and a level playing field so nobody steals your purse on Main Street, or your pension on Wall Street.” She is also 65 years old, and if it’s not going to happen now, it may be never. *** Warren’s rise from obscure law professor into fiery national advocate for the disadvantaged has hardly been an accident, and her background says a lot about where her passions lie now. The Oklahoma native spent most of her professional life teaching at Harvard Law School but says she grew up “hanging on to the edge of the middle class by my fingernails” after her father had a heart attack and lost his job. Her parents lost their car and almost lost their house. As a young law professor, Warren did pioneering research on bankruptcy and discovered that its chief victims were families in crisis over an illness, a divorce or a lost job—families just like her own. Thus was born her career as the nemesis of a financial system that she viewed even before the 2008 Wall Street collapse as complicit in a “rigged” system that fostered debt, foreclosures, bankruptcy and other ways to ruin low- and middle-income Americans. It was a straight line from there to her 2009 role overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (aka the bank bailout) and, in 2010, setting up the new federal agency that was her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans, corporate America and even some Democrats were so alarmed by the prospect of Warren actually running the bureau that Obama chose someone else as its permanent director. But Warren turned the rejection into an improbable Senate victory in Massachusetts in 2012. What she did when she arrived was telling. She joined three committees that are platforms for fighting Wall Street and income inequality: the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Special Committee on Aging (she’s adding Energy and Natural Resources this year). “She seems to be advertising her depth, not her breadth,” said one past and potentially future adviser to Clinton. That’s a huge contrast to White House prospects past and present. As a new senator in 2005, Barack Obama joined the Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees. Republicans Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence panels. Ted Cruz is on Armed Services, as was Clinton during her Senate tenure. All have used the Senate to educate themselves on issues that face commanders in chief. If Warren suddenly turned up on one of those committees, we might wonder about her stated indifference to a White House campaign. But she hasn’t—suggesting she might understand herself and her place in national politics better than some of her fans do. Consider a typical December day for President Obama. He talked to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about his reelection and to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott about the coffee-shop hostage tragedy in Sydney. He appeared in the Cabinet Room to announce a dramatic shift in Cuba policy. He issued a list of commutations and pardons. He gave remarks at two back-to-back Hanukkah receptions at the White House. And that’s only what was evident from a public schedule and press notifications. Warren obviously studies up and votes on diverse issues in Congress and handles the full range of concerns of her Massachusetts constituents. She’s no doubt perfectly capable of developing expertise on anything that might face a president. But would she want to, and would that be the best way for her to serve? Right now she is the public figure most identified with trying to make Washington work for ordinary Americans. It’s hard to think of anyone else who could match her record of getting both headlines and results. Almost all new senators have experience serving in or at least running for elective office, and those that don’t often come from the business world. That makes Warren quite unusual. The Senate Historian’s Office gave me the names of three academics who became senators. But unlike Warren, they had all been steeped in politics for decades as candidates, strategists, advisers and organizers. Paul Douglas of Illinois won a race for Chicago City Council and lost one for the Senate before winning his seat. Minnesota’s Paul Wellstone ran for state auditor and chaired two presidential campaigns in his state. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a veteran of four presidential administrations who once ran for president of the New York City Council, was a domestic-policy expert who also had served as a United Nations ambassador and U.S. ambassador to India. The Senate class of 2014 further underscores Warren’s rare path. The new senators include six House members, two state legislators, one former governor, one former state attorney general, one business executive and one—Ben Sasse of Nebraska—who has been a presidential aide, a House chief of staff, a business consultant and a university president. Obama, whose alleged inexperience was a top Republican talking point in 2008, spent eight years in the Illinois legislature before he won a Senate seat in 2004. Imagine if, comparable to Warren, he had run for the Senate as a full-time University of Chicago professor with a singular, longstanding focus on the plight of low-income neighborhoods (the type he once served as a community organizer). Even more illustrative, imagine if Ralph Nader had tried for and won the White House in the thick of his role as a transformational consumer advocate in the 1960s and 1970s. Working from outside government, he inspired passage of more than a dozen landmark laws including the Freedom of Information Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act and others that set safety standards for vehicles, meat, air, water, offices, mines, pipelines and consumer products. From within the Oval Office, with his prickly personality and myriad urgent issues of all kinds demanding his attention, would Nader’s contribution have been so immense? The groups behind the draft-Warren movement are convinced that she would have more impact on the national debate as a candidate, and that she would keep up the same fight at the White House. “Nobody thinks she’ll be president and go Washington on them,” says Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action. Nor are the Warren forces daunted by Clinton’s dominance (she was at 60-plus percent in December polls of a theoretical Democratic primary field, while Warren drew 9 to 13 percent). Warren’s message is so powerful and resonant, Warren fans say, that she could go all the way. And they’re adamant that they can run a draft-Warren campaign without doing harm to Clinton. “The hunger for Elizabeth Warren comes out of sense that she has a vision and a track record that meets the moment, and not a reflection on any other candidates. Our campaign will be entirely positive and entirely focused on Elizabeth Warren,” Sheyman says. But all of those are arguable propositions. Whatever the moment, first of all, presidents rarely get to govern the way they intend. Bill Clinton did not campaign on pledges to raise taxes or balance the federal budget, but faced with deficits, that’s what he did. George W. Bush called education the civil rights issue of our time and looked to education as his legacy. Then 9/11 happened, and he became a highly controversial war president. Obama was the anti-war contender who would end U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the rise of the Islamic State and regional chaos have forced him to be, like Bush, a wartime commander in chief. There is no telling what a President Warren might face, and whether it would have anything to do with the problems she has devoted her life to studying and solving. Second, Warren’s message is powerful precisely because she doesn’t have to calibrate it or depart from it. She is free to stake out positions without worrying about the give-and-take and practicalities of governing. In pursuit of a “grand bargain” to get a handle on the soaring federal debt, for instance, Obama once proposed curbing the growth of Social Security cost of living adjustments; Warren, by contrast, wants to increase Social Security payments. He has nominated Antonio Weiss to be Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance; she has led a campaign to kill the nomination because he is a Wall Street veteran who helped Burger King escape U.S. tax obligations. Warren tried and failed to get House Democrats to defeat a massive “cromnibus” budget bill over a provision that, at the behest of Citigroup, loosened a 2010 restriction on big banks and (in her words) put taxpayers “right back on the hook” to bail them out. When it moved to the Senate, she went after Citigroup for “its grip over policymaking” in Congress and the executive branch in a floor speech that Democracy for America called “a model of historically transformative political rhetoric.” Obama, however, signed the bill because it had money to fight Ebola and the Islamic State, preserved his immigration and health policies, and funded the government until fall 2015. That’s even though he agreed with Warren on the merits. The purest messengers hold appeal to some in both parties, but support for them would come at a cost, no matter how positive the campaign. Even if Warren ran and was nothing but nice regarding Clinton, the race inevitably would be all about the contrast between her fiery, stand-your-ground populism and Clinton’s longstanding membership in the Democratic establishment—in particular her eight years representing Wall Street as a senator from New York. Also, the purist message is inconsistent with the qualities of recent presidential winners. Obama was the candidate who saw not red or blue states but “one America, red, white and blue.” Bush 43 similarly said he was a uniter, not a divider. While those have proven to be largely unattainable goals, polling shows voters overwhelmingly favor compromise over standoffs and absolutism. Perhaps the strongest rationale for a Warren run is to elevate her impact. But she is already having plenty. A team player, she has been a prodigious fundraiser and campaigner for conservative as well as liberal Democrats. She is a wellspring of policy and messaging ideas for her party, such as her bill to let some people refinance their student debt. Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, just added her to the Democratic leadership lineup. “She obviously has created a ton of clout for herself,” says one Democratic strategist, adding that the Reid move alone “speaks volumes about the power base she’s created.” Nader in his heyday did not need a White House campaign to be influential, and Warren is proving that she doesn’t, either. She is already in the best place possible to give it everything she has on the issues that keep her up at night. *Capital New York: “Not ready for Hillary just yet” <http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/01/8559712/not-ready-hillary-just-yet>* By Dana Rubinstein January 9, 2015, 5:17 a.m. EST Letitia James, New York City’s public advocate and a staunch progressive, still remembers the time Hillary Clinton asked for her endorsement during the 2008 presidential race. “I was in the ladies room when she called me and she said, ‘Hi, this is Hillary.’ And I said ‘Hillary who?’” James endorsed the former U.S. senator from New York and will endorse her if she runs this time around, too. There are plenty of Democratic elected officials like James in Hillary Clinton’s adopted home state, ones who were in the vast majority of the local political firmament that supported Clinton last time and are eager to wave the flag ahead of any official announcement of her presumptive bid for president. There are also, for now, plenty who aren't. Over the past week, Capital reached out to more than two dozen New York Democrats, including all 19 members of the City Council’s “progressive caucus” and asked them to talk about the presidential election. Several Democrats were more than ready to declare. “Were you at the funeral?” asked Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, when reached by cell phone the day of Mario Cuomo’s funeral. Clinton was there and “she looked fabulous,” “stunningly beautiful,” "fantastic," "radiant" and “presidential,” said Brewer, adding, “I’m a Hillary supporter, that’s all I know.” Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer, a progressive whose district is in northwest Queens, and who, when he was a Democratic state committeeman in 2008, went to pro-Hillary rallies with his mother, was similarly effusive. “If Hillary Clinton decides to run, which I would wholeheartedly encourage her to do, I think it would be a great thing for New York and a great thing for the country,” he said. Of the 19 members of the Council's progressive caucus, 15 had no on-the-record comment. Two of the members who did comment were equivocal. “I haven’t even started thinking about that,” said Councilman Ben Kallos, a member of the Council’s progressive caucus from Manhattan. “I’m just focused on the next year.” Challenged on the question of whether he could possibly have no idea of who he might support when the time comes, Kallos said, "Not even the foggiest. I think I’m spending all of my time focusing on stopping the [East 91st Street] marine transfer station and getting laws passed in the next year. Not even at 2016 yet. But it sounds like a fun article to be writing.” Then he recounted, unbidden, a recent episode of "Alpha House" that featured a cameo appearance by Elizabeth Warren. There are plenty of reasons why a New York Democrat, cold-called in early 2015 by a reporter, might equivocate, or be loath to address the issue of 2016 in any way. Possible, perfectly legitimate reasons for this hesitation include: a genuine lack of enthusiasm for Clinton's still-unannounced candidacy, and a desire to see what the rest of the field looks like; a desire to be courted before committing; a sense that questions like "who are you supporting in 2016," asked in the service of speculative, pre-announcement stories like this one, are premature. There's also Andrew Cuomo to think of. "I certainly think that our incumbent governor would be a strong presidential candidate, though there is no real indication that he is preparing to run, even in the absence of a Hillary Clinton candidacy," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, who was one of the few established New York Democrats to back Barack Obama against Clinton in 2008, when he was an assemblyman. Jeffries said it was too soon to comment on what is still a "hypothetical" primary field. "I don't want to comment on who I may or may not support in the absence of any real understanding as to whether she is going to run or not," he said. (Related, possibly: Jeffries links on his House website to a New York Times article, in which he is quoted, headlined, "Eye on 2016, Clintons Rebuild Bonds With Blacks.") Another progressive councilmember, who would only speak on background, said, "Look, this is very challenging for me." The councilmember described having “mixed feelings” about Clinton’s "cautious" approach to immigration, climate change and economic justice. “I feel that she is incredibly calculating in her ideology and everything is perfectly modulated according to the calculus of the moment,” the member said. “And that for much of her career she’s calculated that a more moderate stance is to her advantage. And to that point, I don’t know what’s in her heart.” That council member is already dreading the coming "institutional pressure" to support Clinton from on high: “There will be very senior officials in New York who will commit to her, and they will take it upon themselves to round up local electeds and people who resist that will come under pressure, no doubt.” Karim Camara, an assemblyman from Brooklyn who, like Jeffries, supported Barack Obama in 2008, knows something about that. “There was a lot of ‘You’re a dead man walking’ after [we] supported President Obama,” he said. “A lot of people thought because this was our home state that we would never be in office again because of that decision.” He has yet to decide where he stands in the coming election. Nor has Councilman Dan Garodnick, a moderate-for-New York councilman who supported Clinton in 2008. “I’m waiting for the first candidate to jump into the fray,” he said. And then what will happen? “I don’t know," he said. "I’m waiting to see who the candidates are.” So is Donovan Richards, a councilman from Queens whose former boss, James Sanders, supported Obama in 2008. “I’m watching to see who is going to stand on the side of history that will ensure we have more economic equality in the U.S.,” he said. A progressive caucus member, Richards’ district in Far Rockaway has a huge concentration of public housing, and issues involving poverty are, therefore, important to him. “You know what, I’m listening to her,” he said, about Clinton. “I think that she started to take a better tone in particular in this area [of income inequality] and I’m just looking to hear more of it.” The highest-profile New York advocate on that issue, Mayor Bill de Blasio, will almost certainly back Clinton if and when the time comes. When asked for comment, a de Blasio spokesman referred Capital to the mayor's November conversation with Politico, during which he expressed confidence in Clinton's ability to confront growing concerns about economic inequality. He'll almost certainly back Clinton if she runs, having managed her Senate campaign in 2000, back when he was still a professional political operative. “If she runs, I think New York will definitely support her,” said Mark Weprin, a councilman from Queens who is backing Clinton if she runs. “I think all the major elected officials will get behind her. I think New York is a foregone conclusion.” *Time: “Bernie Sanders: Class Warrior for President” <http://time.com/3660515/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign/>* By Michael Scherer January 9, 2015, 5:00 a.m. EST The political philosophy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is not wanting for boogeymen. He sees them everywhere, overrunning Washington, distorting democracy, beating down the working family. It’s hard to go more than a few minutes into conversation before he begins to list them off. “People with incredible wealth and power,” he says. “The pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, Wall Street, the military industrial complex.” His great regret of Barack Obama is that the President never stood up like Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in 1936 to denounce the “economic royalists” of finance and industry, to “welcome their hatred.” “Point the finger at the billionaire class to say, ‘You know what, they hate my guts, the Koch brothers hate me, it’s all right. But I’m with you, and this is what we’re going to do,’ ” Sanders says. In that shift from Roosevelt’s “economic royalists” to Sanders’ “billionaire class” lie the seeds of a nascent “class-based” presidential campaign that Sanders says he may unfurl as early as March. He has been traveling to New Hampshire and Iowa—”a beautiful state,” he says of the latter—while making the rounds on television news. He has drawn up a 12-step “Economic Agenda for America”—No. 9, not surprisingly, is “Taking on Wall Street”—and deliberating upon the best way to highlight the inequities that threaten the American experiment, so as to spark a grassroots brushfire. During an hour-long visit to TIME’s Washington Bureau on Thursday, the junior Senator from Vermont, self-described “Democratic socialist” and incoming ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee laid out his vision for a presidential campaign, with all the requisite qualifications since he has yet to make a final decision on running. If he takes the dive, the political independent who caucuses with Democrats will not spare his adopted party, a fact that is sure to cause headaches for the current heir to the liberal crown, Hillary Clinton. “People see the Democratic Party, which really once was the party of the American working class, really isn’t anymore,” he says. “They have over the years supported trade agreements from corporate America. They have not been vigorous in standing up for the kind of tax system that we need. They have not been vigorous enough in fighting for the kind of jobs programs that we need.” There is more: The deregulation of Wall Street under President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin—”not a Republican,” notes Sanders. The too-small 2009 stimulus of Obama after the great recession. The hesitancy of so many in the party to declare healthcare a basic American right. That said, he claims no interest in running a campaign that does not yield a large number of votes. He has run and lost protest campaigns before, but to do so now would risk marginalizing his own views. “If we don’t have a good campaign … it’s not just my ego that is hurt,” he says. He has also not yet decided whether to mount a frontal assault on Hillary Clinton’s likely quest for the Democratic nomination, the most likely route to a consequential campaign. “I have not yet made the decision of whether to run as an independent or within the Democratic primary system,” he cautions, before noting that it is almost impossible for an independent to get on the ballot in states such as North Carolina. “But what I will not do is to create a situation where we elect a right-wing Republican as president.” And how will he deal with campaign-finance system that increasing favors the candidate with the richest friends? He also says he sees no need to disarm by demanding his supporters eschew unlimited checks to SuperPACs, the big-spending political vehicles of the billionaires he decries. “When I am walking into a campaign where I will be outspent 50 to one, should the first thing that I do be to say I should be outspent 100-to-one?” he asks, rhetorically. Asked about the familiar last names of the likely frontrunners, he agrees that the Bush and Clinton dynasties raise important issues for the country. “It’s an issue. How dynamic and vital is our American democracy? ” he asks. ” If your dad, or your husband in Hillary’s case, or your father in Jeb Bush’s case, or his brother, has a name that is nationally famous, you start off with a certain name advantage.” Sanders’ dad sold paint in Brooklyn, and in Sanders’ last statewide campaign he raised only $7 million, about what the 2012 Obama campaign spent in a week during the 2012 election. But a true populist does not let odds get in his way. To quote FDR again, “The resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.” So Sanders, his hair always mussed, his Brooklyn accent unfaded, faces a choice, to fight on with his hat in the ring or from the safety of the Senate floor. *The Hill: “O'Malley to decide on 2016 run by spring” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/228991-omalley-to-decide-on-2016-run-by-spring>* By Rachel Huggins January 8, 2015, 10:04 p.m. EST Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley on Thursday said he will decide in the spring whether to run for president in 2016, possibly becoming a rival to likely Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Speaking at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, the outgoing governor told the crowd he's "very seriously considering running in 2016," but first he needs to get his family settled in their hometown of Baltimore. He went on to say he's not waiting for Clinton to announce whether she'll run, as the former secretary of State is expected to make a formal announcement in the first few months of 2015. Clinton is considered the leading contender for the Democratic nomination. Stoking presidential speculation, O'Malley has traveled to the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire, but remains far behind in polls of Democratic voters. *BuzzFeed: “Martin O’Malley Knocks Brown Campaign For Not Defending His Record” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/martin-omalley-knocks-brown-campaign-for-not-defending-his-r#.fvP2498VvQ>* By Ruby Cramer January 8, 2015, 11:24 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] “I can tell you my feelings were hurt,” says the Maryland governor. A Brown campaign consultant responds: “It’s disappointing that as his career is winding down so is his loyalty to a man who stood by his side for eight years.” In two weeks, Martin O’Malley will complete his last term as governor of Maryland, move his family from the official residence in Annapolis back home to Baltimore, and map out the presidential campaign he’s been considering for months. But as he considers a bid for the Democratic nomination, another race still casts a shadow over O’Malley’s next move: the loss last fall of Anthony Brown, his lieutenant governor and hand-picked successor, to Larry Hogan, the Republican businessman few thought could win in a state considered left-leaning. Hogan, who won by four points, campaigned more against the eight-year O’Malley administration than Brown, focusing on the string of tax hikes that voters, polls showed, considered the dominant motivating issue in the race. On Thursday night, O’Malley suggested the Brown campaign strategy, not his policies, were to blame for the November loss. His comments, made at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, were his most pointed on the subject yet. “I’ll let others determine whether the prospects were hurt. I can tell you my feelings were hurt,” said O’Malley, asked about the race. “We had done a lot of really good things in Maryland, and yet you did not hear much of that during the campaign.” “I was not on the ballot in Maryland,” he said. The outgoing governor suggested that had Brown more forcefully defended his economic record, and the programs and improvements the tax revenues funded, the outcome would have been different. He cited his own reelection race in 2010, when his opponent, former governor Robert Ehrlich, also ran against tax hikes. “When I was on the ballot — when we were criticized and our opponents hit us for many of those same votes they hit our lieutenant governor for — unemployment was twice as high and most of those votes were six years fresher,” said O’Malley. “And we prevailed by 14 points by always coming back to the purpose of those tough choices — which is more jobs and better opportunities for our kids.” “So you rarely heard that affirmative story,” he said of the 2014 race. (Brown targeted social issues, like Hogan’s position on gun control and abortion.) Asked about O’Malley’s comments, a Brown campaign consultant, who asked to speak without attribution, said on Thursday, “It’s disappointing that as his career is winding down so is his loyalty to a man who stood by his side for eight years.” O’Malley’s camp has addressed the Brown race few times since the election. The day after the election, a person close to the governor was quoted in Politico saying that Brown’s campaign had been “poorly executed.” O’Malley had even sounded “alarm bells” about the strategy, the source said. Later that month, the governor shrugged off the loss in an interview with the New Yorker. Toward the end of the race, O’Malley appeared at more events for Brown and helped with get-out-the-vote efforts, calling himself the campaign’s “deputy field director.” But for much of last year, O’Malley spent his weekends away, stumping for Democrats in early-voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Recent polls show that the majority of Maryland residents do not want the governor to run for president. He is expected to make his decision sometime this spring. “I’m very seriously considering running in 2016,” he said on Thursday. On Jan. 21, at the inauguration in Annapolis, Hogan will take over as governor. *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>)