podesta_email_00743.txt

podesta-emails 5,526 words email

P17 P22 V11 D6 V9

-----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 Monday December 22, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Our veterans have served America – and it is time that America served our veterans."@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-record-of-service-to-veterans/ … <http://t.co/bSpDUIIA9i> [12/22/14, 1:11 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/547091971945152512>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> was given a lifetime service award by @TAPS4America <https://twitter.com/TAPS4America> for her work with veterans #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-gets-close-candid-with-military-families#.juypA4Z5d … <http://t.co/0s4FWW4ayC> [12/22/14, 12:46 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/547085667633623040>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@allidablack <https://twitter.com/allidablack> quotes @HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>: We must "be clear-eyed [without] losing sight of the world as we want it to be” http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/valley-views/2014/12/22/roosevelt-tenets-live-human-rights-day/20755547/ … <http://t.co/vQY9FhYyBZ> [12/22/14, 12:22 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/547079627072876544>] *Headlines:* *Poughkeepsie Journal opinion: Allida Black: “Roosevelt tenets live on in Human Rights Day” <http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/valley-views/2014/12/22/roosevelt-tenets-live-human-rights-day/20755547/>* “Eleanor Roosevelt dedicated her life to promoting this vision. It is not simple work. As Hillary Clinton explained in Hard Choices, ‘Our challenge is to be clear-eyed about the world as it is while never losing sight of the world as we want it to be.’” *Wall Street Journal: “Little Crossover Appeal for Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush — WSJ/NBC Poll” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/22/little-crossover-appeal-for-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-wsjnbc-poll/?mod=djemCapitalJournalDaybreak&utm_content=buffer0146b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>* “Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Bush is a lock to run, but, at this early stage in the posturing, the poll results look much better for the former secretary of state.” *Boston Globe: “Clinton faces headwinds from liberals as Warren rises” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/12/21/hillary-clinton-likely-presidential-bid-runs-into-headwinds-from-liberals-who-back-sen-elizabeth-warren/sf2M2OwluGJgTp6DX2YDJJ/story.html>* “Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said the two women have long fought for the same ideals. Asked about the impact of Warren’s rise on a potential Clinton bid, he said via e-mail, ‘We need more people like Elizabeth Warren and those she inspires fighting for them.’” *Politicker NJ: “Rutgers 2016 Poll of NJ voters: Clinton 49%, Christie 39%” <http://politickernj.com/2014/12/rutgers-2016-poll-of-nj-voters-clinton-49-christie-39/>* “In a 2016 mano-a-mano between Gov. Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, New Jersey voters continue to give Clinton a double-digit lead, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.” *Time: “Hillary Clinton, Up, Up and Away” <http://time.com/3643813/hillary-clinton-promises-upward-mobility/>* “As she embarked on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates, speaking gratis to voters, she dropped the milquetoast observations about American foreign policy and focused instead on a single, overarching message: the economic frustration of the American middle class.” *CNN: “These 2016 long-shots think they can win?” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politics/2016-politics-long-shots/>* “Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite for Democrats, though she continues to eye Elizabeth Warren -- a huge political brand in her own right.” *Articles:* *Poughkeepsie Journal opinion: Allida Black: “Roosevelt tenets live on in Human Rights Day” <http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/valley-views/2014/12/22/roosevelt-tenets-live-human-rights-day/20755547/>* By Allida Black December 21, 2014 International Human Rights Day marks the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948. Crafted in the shadow of the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II, the declaration gave the world vision it needed to stand up to fear, and the blueprint it craved to build a safer and more just world. It is a bold document, based on a single premise – that the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Hyde Park’s Eleanor Roosevelt, who led the drafting and adoption of the declaration, understood we are all members of the human family, and that for governments to prosper and wars to cease, we must treat each other with the same respect and candor that we treat our own families. She knew this would not be easy or popular and that she would be accused of championing ideals that could never be achieved. But she persisted; she knew that without ideals, politics and policy are merely power games without a soul. She urged America and the world to recognize that human rights “begin in small places, close to home…the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.” And that “unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.” But she also knew that rights come with responsibilities. For rights to exist here and around the world, we must recognize, implement and defend them. As she often argued: “Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.” Eleanor Roosevelt dedicated her life to promoting this vision. It is not simple work. As Hillary Clinton explained in Hard Choices, “Our challenge is to be clear-eyed about the world as it is while never losing sight of the world as we want it to be.” We can do better. That’s what human rights mean. It is hard, tiring work. It takes the courage to dream, the political skills necessary to implement the dream, and a heart fierce enough to continue the struggle. Let us recommit to the rights of all members of the human family. Let us hear Eleanor’s call. *Dr. Allida Black is an Eleanor Roosevelt historian. She is a research professor of history and international affairs at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Eleanor Roosevelt’s Val-Kill, a national historic site, is off Route 9G in Hyde Park.* *Wall Street Journal: “Little Crossover Appeal for Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush — WSJ/NBC Poll” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/22/little-crossover-appeal-for-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-wsjnbc-poll/?mod=djemCapitalJournalDaybreak&utm_content=buffer0146b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>* By Patrick O’Connor December 22, 2014, 7:23 a.m. EST It’s hard to find people open to supporting both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Despite claims the two potential White House hopefuls would bring some crossover appeal to the next presidential race in 2016, only 8% of American adults say they would be open to both, according to the results of the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. One in five people surveyed said they couldn’t support either. That’s not terribly surprising for America’s two reigning political dynasties. Both families engender as much anger from opponents as they do enthusiasm from supporters. But it suggests a contest between the two would break along predictably partisan lines. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Bush is a lock to run, but, at this early stage in the posturing, the poll results look much better for the former secretary of state. Half of all American adults said they would be open to supporting Mrs. Clinton, while 48% said they couldn’t. Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, would start the race with 57% of adults saying they wouldn’t be open to voting for him for president. Just 31% said they would. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, who scores well among Democrats, a third of all Republicans said they wouldn’t vote for Mr. Bush. One trend starting to emerge: Mrs. Clinton appeals to many of the same groups as President Barack Obama, with some notable exceptions. Hart Research Associates, the Democratic polling firm that conducts the Journal survey with the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, compared Mrs. Clinton’s support among 21 demographic groups with Mr. Obama’s support in 2012. The numbers showed nearly identical, dismal levels of support for both Mrs. Clinton and the president among white men (right around 35%), but Mrs. Clinton far exceeds what the president tallied among white women, with 52% saying they would be open to support her. Mrs. Clinton would have to make up some ground to match Mr. Obama’s numbers among black and Hispanic voters. But the former secretary of state has a big edge among small-town and rural voters. Perhaps most interesting, Mrs. Clinton does much better among Latino women than she does among Latino men. The poll also found evidence that to win the presidency, Mrs. Clinton would need to distinguish herself from the president. Some 22% of voters said they would be open to supporting Mrs. Clinton but also want to see the next president move in a different direction than the current officeholder. *Boston Globe: “Clinton faces headwinds from liberals as Warren rises” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/12/21/hillary-clinton-likely-presidential-bid-runs-into-headwinds-from-liberals-who-back-sen-elizabeth-warren/sf2M2OwluGJgTp6DX2YDJJ/story.html>* By Jessica Meyers December 21, 2014 It has been a tough year for the Hillary Rodham Clinton juggernaut. Her record as secretary of state was undercut by the rise of the Islamic State and a breakdown in relations with Russia. Her much-awaited book didn’t sell many copies. Her face graced the cover of this year’s worst-selling issue of People magazine. Then, during the last few weeks, a different juggernaut erupted — a liberal campaign to persuade Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president. One group, MoveOn.org, is spending $1 million on a “Run Warren Run” effort and recently sent troops to the first-caucus state of Iowa. A second team, Democracy for America, has bolted from its pro-Clinton founder and is using $250,000 on a similar pro-Warren effort. Clinton still appears likely to clinch a nomination, particularly if Warren keeps her pledge not to run. But the difficulties of 2014 are casting her race in a different light, raising questions about liberal dissatisfaction with her record and whether a leftward shift would hurt her in a general election. “There are a lot of unchecked boxes with Hillary Clinton when it comes to economic populism and corporate accountability,” said Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal group. “There are definitely red flags.” He cited pricey speaking fees that Clinton received at two events for Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street investment bank, and questions about her position on numerous policies that affect the middle class, such as a long-shot hope to expand Social Security benefits. The group, while not part of the draft effort, has sent an organizer to New Hampshire in hopes of creating a coalition that ensures that candidates carry Warren’s message. At the very least, these liberal groups hope to use her momentum to push Clinton in a direction more aligned with a populist agenda. “We absolutely would welcome Secretary Clinton laying out an energizing and bold agenda on the issues MoveOn members care about and Senator Warren cares about,” said Ben Wikler, Washington director of MoveOn.org. In a sign of increased agitation with the Warren dynamic, a Clinton adviser recently met with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said cofounder Green, confirming a report first aired by MSNBC. He declined to provide details. Democracy for America helps showcase the divide among activists. While the liberal group is pushing for Warren, founder Howard Dean favors Clinton. “I am convinced if you put the facts in front of Hillary Clinton, she would see the facts, she would understand the issue, and she would do the right thing,” said Dean, a former Vermont governor and past chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Many Democrats still flock to Clinton. More than 80 percent said they would support her in a presidential bid, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. But 71 percent of all voters surveyed said they want the next president to take a different approach to the White House. Warren’s recent successes have propelled her popularity among liberals. She nearly derailed a big spending bill over a provision that she said would water down financial regulations. She has also taken on the White House by opposing Obama’s nominee for a Treasury undersecretary, Antonio Weiss, largely due to his Wall Street ties. Supporters shrug at Warren’s insistence that she is not running in 2016 and note that she puts her dismissals in present tense. She has pledged to complete her term, which ends in January 2019. Clinton has signaled she will run but has not given a final decision. Clinton has stayed silent on Warren’s latest maneuvers. But supporters are setting her up as a liberal figure in her own right. “There’s such an impressive record in Hillary’s life and across the span of her career supporting and promoting opportunities for middle-class families, for women, and children,” said Tracy Sefl, a senior adviser for Ready for Hillary, a political action committee that is not affiliated with Clinton but has raised more than $12 million to encourage a presidential bid. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said the two women have long fought for the same ideals. Asked about the impact of Warren’s rise on a potential Clinton bid, he said via e-mail, “We need more people like Elizabeth Warren and those she inspires fighting for them.” Clinton channeled the Massachusetts senator in October, when she spoke at a Boston event aimed at saving Martha Coakley’s faltering Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign. “Don’t let anyone tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” she said, echoing a theme often sounded by Warren. Republicans denounced her remarks as liberal pandering, and she backed away from them days later saying she had “shorthanded” her comments. But some of the enthusiasm Clinton generated when she first ran for president in 2008 has waned. A speech she gave at Georgetown University this month filled a little more than half the auditorium. Her autobiography, a 656-page tome titled “Hard Choices,” has yet to sell enough copies to meet a reported $14 million advance. And people still wince at Clinton’s comment last June that she and her husband left the White House “dead broke.” Some supporters fear this erosion of Clinton’s image, especially when encouraged by members of her own party, will hurt Democratic chances of winning the White House. “My concern is anytime you leave your base, you run the risk of Republicans pursuing,” said Lou D’Allesandro, a longtime New Hampshire state senator and Clinton ally. “But if [Clinton] decides to run, it will be tough to unlodge her.” The pair aren’t exactly chummy. Warren called out Clinton in her book, “The Two-Income Trap,” for approving bankruptcy legislation as a New York senator that Warren believed would harm working families. But Warren has said she backs a Clinton run. And Clinton has sought to make friends. “I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get it,” she said at the Coakley event. Liberals are banking on the Warren focus to pay off even if she doesn’t run. Clinton “isn’t a turn-off as much as an insurance policy,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic political analyst in Boston. “This is much more about getting Hillary Clinton to embrace these conditions than watching Elizabeth Warren on a campaign for the White House.” *Politicker NJ: “Rutgers 2016 Poll of NJ voters: Clinton 49%, Christie 39%” <http://politickernj.com/2014/12/rutgers-2016-poll-of-nj-voters-clinton-49-christie-39/>* By Max Pizarro December 22, 2014, 12:53 p.m. EST In a 2016 mano-a-mano between Gov. Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, New Jersey voters continue to give Clinton a double-digit lead, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Forty-nine percent of registered voters say they would support Clinton over Christie, while 39 percent back Christie. The gap between the two has remained around 10 points through much of the past year, according to polling director David Redlawsk. Clinton is also more positively received by New Jersey voters, with a 56 percent favorability rating, compared to Christie’s 44 percent. While Clinton’s favorability rating is down from 65 percent at the beginning of 2014, Christie’s dropped even more after January’s Bridgegate revelations. Both ratings, however, have remained relatively stable since their declines early in the year. “It probably makes sense that there is little movement in a hypothetical matchup two years before the actual election,” said Redlawsk, director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling and professor of political science at Rutgers University. “Still, Christie starts down double-digits in his home state if both he and Clinton are the nominees.” Sixty-three percent of New Jersey voters expect Christie to hit the 2016 campaign trail, up six points since last asked in an August Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Voters also think Christie’s decision-making ahead of a potential presidential campaign has not been New Jersey-focused. Instead, 55 percent says the governor’s choices in signing or vetoing bills have been more about a potential presidential run, rather than what’s good for the state. In addition, 41 percent think Christie’s travel schedule outside of the state for fundraising and campaigning has hurt his ability to govern. But 52 percent say his travels have made no difference to his ability to govern. At this point, about seven in ten Republicans and Democrats name a preference for their party’s nomination, little changed throughout 2014. Republicans and those leaning GOP continue to stick by Christie as their top choice, while Democrats (along with leaners) overwhelmingly still prefer Clinton. Christie is number 1 for 32 percent of Garden State Republicans and GOP leaners, down nine points since August. Another nine percent name Christie as their second choice. Former 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney follows with 10 percent naming him as first choice and eight percent listing him second. In contrast, 54 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democrat choose Clinton as their candidate, down five points from August. For another eight percent, she is the second choice. No other Democrat breaks 10 percent in first choice mentions; Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) follows as first choice for six percent and second choice for five percent. Results are from a statewide poll of 750 adults, contacted by live callers on both landlines and cell phones from Dec. 3-10, 2014. The subsample of 646 registered voters reported on here has a margin of error of +/-4.3 percentage points. *Time: “Hillary Clinton, Up, Up and Away” <http://time.com/3643813/hillary-clinton-promises-upward-mobility/>* By Haley Sweetland Edwards December 22, 2014, 9:45 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton prepares a 2016 campaign on promises of upward mobility for the middle class It wasn’t until this fall that Hillary Clinton began to show her hand. Her book tour was winding down, the midterm elections were gearing up, and her paid speaking events, for which she charged up to $300,000 a pop, had passed from initial curiosity into the realm of postmodern performance art–spectacles, like Andy Warhol prints, remarked on mainly for their cost. But as she embarked on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates, speaking gratis to voters, she dropped the milquetoast observations about American foreign policy and focused instead on a single, overarching message: the economic frustration of the American middle class. “Working people haven’t gotten a raise in a decade, and it feels harder and harder to get ahead,” she said in Pennsylvania, in what had become a typical stump speech. From California to Massachusetts, she told voters to choose politicians who were “on your side,” to demand a “fair shot” and a “fresh start,” to make their vote about “upward mobility.” By the time she got to New York, she was practically preaching. “If you work hard and do your part, you and your family are supposed to be able to have a better life,” she roared. If that rhetoric sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Barack Obama made “on your side” and “fair shot” the two dominant clichés of the 2012 election. They, in turn, owed a lot to Clinton’s husband, the 42nd President, who made the “working hard and playing by the rules” trope a huge crowd pleaser in the 1990s. Indeed, the most remarkable part of Clinton’s new message was that it wasn’t new at all. The most talked-about presidential candidate who is not yet a candidate had simply seized at last upon the issue that has dominated every election in the past generation–and campaign professionals across the country took note. It is, after all, good politics. Despite the recent growth of the economy, the drop in oil prices and some qualified optimism about wages, the vast majority of Americans have yet to feel so much as a gentle breeze of economic recovery. The median American income this year was about 6% lower than it was in 2000, if adjusted for inflation, and two-thirds of Americans are now living on paychecks that are 15% to 35% smaller than they were in 2002, according to Robert Shapiro, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Sonecon, an economic advisory and analysis firm. “Most people are getting poorer every year,” says Shapiro. “There’s nothing like this on record. It explains our current politics in a way that no other data explain it.” But if delivering a couple dozen speeches about the broken economy isn’t political rocket science, figuring out a way to convince voters that you’re the one to fix it just might be. Clinton, who is expected to announce her candidacy in early 2015, has her work cut out for her. If she’s going to run on a message of economic prosperity for the middle class, she will need a persuasive policy agenda and a rock-solid political strategy to convince voters that she is, or could be, the new hero of the middle class. American voters have been promised the moon before, and 2016 will be no different. In the next few months, all the Republican presidential hopefuls will present their lists of policy fixes, including old standbys like more domestic energy, less regulation and lower taxes. Obama, for his part, will continue to push his agenda, including a higher minimum wage and an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, a tax refund designed to reward working families. Clinton, who will want to differentiate herself from Obama, will probably lift a handful of policies from the tried-and-true Democratic handbook, like funding more infrastructure projects, while loudly championing a few particularly innovative ideas of her own. William Galston, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former domestic-policy adviser to Clinton’s husband, suggests, for example, creating an online public university–the National Online University, he calls it–where anyone could get a degree, in their own time, for free. Others propose federally backed computer-manufacturing apprenticeships, free IT classes and streamlined regulations to make it easier to start small businesses. But while some voters are moved by policy ideas, Clinton’s success in both the primaries and a general election will hinge on whether she is able to give a good sermon about something more important: hope. Cue hometown boy Bill Clinton. In mid-November, he offered a 2016 campaign preview of his own in a speech at his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. “When I took office, the distribution of American prosperity looked astonishingly like it does now,” he told a group of supporters. But by the end of the decade, “we had three surpluses and the fourth surplus we submitted to Congress when I left.” The Clinton Administration, he said, created 50% more jobs than Reagan’s, moved 100 times as many people up from poverty and increased the incomes of the bottom 20% of Americans by 23.6%. “This shows the importance of policy,” he said. Then he added pointedly, “We can do this again.” The subtext was clear to everyone present: all we need to return to past glory is a bit of that Clinton touch. That is, of course, a story line that rankles Clinton’s rivals, both on the Republican side and among the contingent of liberal Democrats who would prefer to see a populist candidate like Elizabeth Warren snag the nomination. Both groups take issue with the narrative. The boom in the ’90s, they believe, was not the result of presidential policy so much as good timing: the birth of the commercial Internet drove productivity and wages higher at a time when the U.S.’s slowly declining manufacturing sector had yet to hit rock bottom. But from there, the two sides’ strategies diverge. Republicans point out that voters’ memories of the Clinton Administration are hardly all roses. “It’s amusing that the Clinton allies rely heavily on spinning any positives they can from the 1990s while avoiding the baggage that her campaign will carry from their past scandals,” said Tim Miller, who runs the conservative PAC America Rising. Liberal Democrats are already busy discrediting the idea that Clinton, who is more closely associated with Wall Street than factory floors, should be cast as a warrior for the little guy at all. They point out that in their quarter-century in the public spotlight, the Clintons have raised more than a billion dollars from corporations and business elites, and that nearly all the biggest financial firms have already, albeit tacitly, pledged Clinton their support. Forty-four percent of all voters in Iowa thought Clinton’s “close ties to Wall Street” were a disadvantage, according to an October poll. Clinton and her close circle are not oblivious to the problem. Aides patiently explain that Clinton donates her famously large speaking fees to her family’s foundation and that the differences between her views and those of the populist wing of the party “are more rhetorical than actual.” But the debate foreshadows the fight to come–when Clinton hopes to reclaim the spirit of the struggling middle class and that same group of voters goes shopping for a candidate who can actually make a difference. *CNN: “These 2016 long-shots think they can win?” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politics/2016-politics-long-shots/>* By Stephen Collinson December 22, 2014, 9:31 a.m. EST No one knows your name so here's an idea: why not run for President? Politicians who would draw blank stares from most Americans are toying -- sometimes openly -- with the idea of a run, gunning for a chance to take on the biggest names in politics and to defy the odds and end up in the White House. On the Republican side, this crew of long-shots includes former New York Gov. George Pataki, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, 2012 candidate Rick Santorum and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders could vie for the Democratic nomination. None of these potential 2016ers register more than single digits in most polls and they'd face seemingly insurmountable odds against politicians who are so well known that they essentially double as national celebrities. Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite for Democrats, though she continues to eye Elizabeth Warren -- a huge political brand in her own right. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie could bring so much star power to a GOP primary fight that lesser-known candidates might struggle to get a word in. So why would largely unknown candidates endure the endless stump speeches, germ-laden hand shakes, pleas to donors, soggy pizza, late night flights and crack-of-dawn TV hits that come with running for President? "It's ego," said David Johnson, a Georgia political consultant who runs a Republican-leaning firm. "It's a way to build their brand identity. They get a platform during the debates, they are able to advocate their positions." Every presidential campaign is by definition a long-shot — after all, only one candidate can win. A victorious White House bid is a mystical blend of tactics and timing, luck and charisma and the ability to ride out a crisis. But not everyone who loses is a loser. A presidential bid is also a pretty good line on a resume -- even if it doesn't lead to the Oval Office. "For some of these candidates, it's pretty obvious that they are thinking long term about their careers — and thinking about building a brand for themselves that they can parlay into a political talk show," said Oberlin College Professor Michael Parkin, author of an academic paper on how political candidates use late night television. Mike Huckabee's folksy charm won over voters at the Iowa caucus in 2008 and he ended up with a radio show. He is still strong among evangelicals and could jump into the 2016 race if he sees an opening. A losing race can still turn a politician into a bigger player in their party, fatten lecture fees or lead to new jobs in government. Howard Dean, for instance, turned his infamous flame out during the 2004 Democratic primary into a job as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which helped him influence the party's direction long after his loss. Another Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, was one of a crowd of 435 in the House of Representatives. But in presidential runs mostly remembered for his claim he saw a UFO and arm twirling antics to show he had no corporate "strings," Kucinich won national attention for his brand of liberal politics. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich introduced himself to a new generation of American conservatives with his 2012 presidential run. He's now a sought after pundit, including on CNN, and an author. The power of presidential campaigns to make someone's name is already playing out in 2016. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson polled second in an early CNN snapshot of the Republican race this month, despite being barely known outside of conservative circles. "If you run for the American presidency and don't make it, but run a credible effort, you have enhanced your stature on the national stage," said David Yepsen, a connoisseur of political long-shots after 34 years with the Des Moines Register. "Politics is a game run by risk takers and most of them fail. But enough of them succeed. You wind up in a better place." In 2007, Jim Gilmore, a former Virginia governor and Republican Party chief, figured he was qualified to be president and was a big enough name to have a chance. He had a set of economic and foreign policy issues he cared about, so he launched a campaign. He sparred with candidates like Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in the early debates but quit the race months before the first nominating contests when he failed to catch fire. He has no regrets. "For me, it still remains a positive experience. I was happy that I ran," said Gilmore, who used his campaign to pivot into a Senate race, which he lost. "It's important to offer the right kinds of thinking of policy and programs for the people of the United States — that's what comes through in a presidential campaign." Gilmore now runs American Opportunity, a conservative policy organization. Candidates set out for the White House hoping that lightning might strike. After all, it has before. No one thought Jimmy Carter had a shot in 1976. But he spent months going door-to-door in Iowa and built a campaign that took him to the presidency. Few pundits gave Barack Obama, the self styled "skinny kid with a funny name," a chance of downing the Clinton machine in 2008. But he's now the 44th president. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush was riding high in the polls after winning the Gulf War and the Democratic nomination didn't seem worth a dime. But a talented governor from Arkansas, seen as a long-shot because of his truckload of personal baggage, jumped into the race when other big name Democrats passed. Soon, he was President Bill Clinton. A long-odds White House bid is also a chance for a politician to make themselves competitive for the vice presidency. Joe Biden didn't even win 1% in the Iowa caucuses in 2008, but Obama saw enough of his foreign policy expertise to pick him as his vice president. Fiorina, who lost a California Senate race in 2010, is touring early voting states to talk about women's issues and may be trying to put her name into the vice presidential chatter this time around, Johnson said. Long-shot candidates also see a White House campaign as a way to highlight a favorite agenda. John Bolton would need an earthquake to win the nomination but the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is contemplating a presidential campaign to thrust his brand of hawkish foreign policy to the center of the Republican race. Webb might play a similar role for Democrats with his strong anti-war views. Long-shot candidates also sometimes see a White House race as a way of brokering their influence over a particular set of supporters. Rev. Jesse Jackson used presidential runs in the 1980s to win recognition as a leader of the African-American voting bloc, which is crucial for Democrats. A presidential run can also serve as a vehicle for politicians, like O'Malley, who have higher ambitions but no obvious openings. Some also-rans do enough to put themselves in the frame for Cabinet posts: former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack ran briefly against Obama in the 2008 campaign and is now Agriculture Secretary. Other candidates begin as long shots and become competitive over multiple campaigns. Ronald Reagan for instance ran for president twice before he won in 1980. Romney used his 2008 campaign to position himself for the nomination four years later. If they don't get many votes, long-shot candidates can still damage the frontrunners. Former Sen. Chris Dodd punctured Clinton's 2008 campaign aura of inevitability for the first time over her debate answer on driving licenses for illegal immigrants. And some find out that running for president isn't as much fun as it looks. Quirky 2008 Democratic candidate Mike Gravel couldn't get a word in as Clinton, Obama and Biden sparred in the 2008 debates and complained he was treated like a "potted plant."