Mediaboss Marketing

After I wrote this piece arguing that it made little sense for Mitt Romney to run for president a third time in 2016, I got lots and lots of tweets like this one:

Clinton has, after all, been around national politics longer than Romney. And she is just as much a throwback as he would be if he ran again. I get it. I just don't agree with it. (Cue: Well, that's because you are a Democrat and rooting for her to win. Um, no.) Here's why a second Clinton bid in 2016 makes more sense than a third Romney bid would.

1. It would be her second, not third, run for president. The more apt comparison for Clinton 2016 is Romney 2012. In both cases, they were seen as the runner-up to the eventual nominee in their party's most recent competitive primary. And there's a clear logic in coming in second and then running again to try and come in first. It's the logic that installed Romney as the favorite in 2012, a position he never relinquished. Making a return bid also allows a candidate Clinton in this case to make the "I did it once and learned what to do and what not to do" argument. Running for a third time in three straight elections, having lost twice before, makes it a lot harder to make that argument.

2. She's spent sixyears doing other things. Clinton went from her 2008 loss to serving for four years as the country's leading diplomat. That allows her to present herself as something different and new-ish to voters. She can draw rhetorically and from a policy perspective on what she's done since the last time she ran for president; "Representing the U.S. on the world stage, I learned that ... " is a sentence you can see Clinton using and using effectively as she re-pitches herself to voters. Romney, on the other hand, is just over two years removed from losing in 2012, and hasn't taken a job (or a position on a major issue) that would allow him to make the I'm-something-new-and-different argument easily. He's essentially the same person he was when he lost in 2012; his argument is, in a nutshell: "I came close last time and I was right about lots of things." Sure. But, neither of those things re-invent him in any way and his loss in 2012 suggests that some level of reinvention would be necessary if he wants to run and win in 2016.

3. She has no primary challenge. Clinton is running (or will be running) in as close to an empty primary field as any non-incumbent president could hope for in 2016. She is the de facto nominee before she has even said the words "I'm running." Romney, on the other hand, would face a crowded and talented field that is inarguably deeper and better than the one he bested in 2012. If Romney had a path even close to as (seemingly) easy as Clinton's, his third-time candidacy would make a whole lot more sense.

That word "sense" is the one that I and the Republicans I talk to not directly linked to Romney keep coming back to when talking about his potential 2016 candidacy. Typically in winning campaigns presidential or otherwise there's a logic behind the bid that not only makes sense to the candidate and his or inner circle but also to voters. Whether that's a rerun after coming in second (the preferred route to the nomination of most recent Republican nominees) or the need to have a complete break from the "old" ways of doing things in politics (Barack Obama's "hope" and "change" in 2008), there'susuallya sound logic to the candidacy.

Campaigns without an obvious logic to them Ted Kennedy's primary challenge to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 being the shining example tend not to work out so well. And the logic of Clinton's 2016 candidacy seems to be there. For Romney, not so much.

Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.

Originally posted here:
The Fix: No, Hillary Clinton Mitt Romney when it comes to 2016

Sign up for the newsletter: http://on.wsj.com/CapitalJournalSignup

PODESTA TO JOIN EMERGING HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN: John Podesta, a top White House adviser, will take on a senior role in Hillary Clintons emerging presidential bid after he leaves the administration in February. The move is one of the most definitive signs yet that Mrs. Clinton is building the apparatus to launch a 2016 run. Mrs. Clinton isnt likely to announce her decision on whether to enter the race until the spring. But her advisers are making preparations for such a campaign, as evidenced by Mr. Podesta signing on.

Mr. Podesta, who served as chief of staff in former President Bill Clintons second term and has held a top role in the familys charitable foundation, has sat in on informal meetings of Clinton aides in recent months devoted to a possible presidential bid. The precise role he would play in a Clinton campaign is unclear, but people familiar with discussions said he likely would be campaign chairman, should she decide to run. Campaign operations tend to have a youthful cast, but Mr. Podesta, who turns 66 this month, would come to the job as a senior strategist and troubleshooter for Mrs. Clinton. Peter Nicholas and Colleen McCain Nelson report.

More on 2016: Gov. Chris Christie called for a return to optimism and bipartisanship for a nation beset by anxiety in his State of the State address that touted his record in New Jersey and looked to national issues as he considers a 2016 run Rand Paul has hired GOP strategist Chip Englander to be campaign manager if he decides to launch a presidential bid Sen. Elizabeth Warren, in the future tense, said no to a 2016 White House bid.

Compiled by Rebecca Ballhaus

SIOBHAN HUGHESS EARLY HIT: GOP CONSIDERS RECONCILIATION IN TAKING ON HEALTH LAW Republicans want to take aim at the 2010 health care law, but there is no consensus over whether to use a procedural tactic called reconciliation to do so. Those making the argument for reconciliation have one point in their favor: Democrats used the tool to get the health law passed five years ago.The question is expected to come up at a GOP policy retreat Wednesday and Thursday. Read Siobhan Hughess full post in Washington Wire.

STORIES YOU SHOULDNT MISS OBAMA ROLLS OUT STRATEGY AGAINST CYBERATTACKS: The White House is launching a multifront strategy to deal with the snowballing threat of cyberattacks, drafting legislation to bolster corporate defenses, hosting a California summit aimed at repairing trust between government and business, and sending an envoy to China to ramp up pressure on North Korea. The approach reflects the increasing alarm that cyberattacks cause for U.S. officials and businesses, particularly as breaches increase in frequency and sophistication. The proposals also illustrate the complexity of thwarting the attacks. Damian Paletta and Colleen McCain Nelson report.

OBAMA TRIES TO WOO GOP ON HIS PRIORITIES: President Obama, meeting with leaders of the new Congress yesterday, said he would work with Republicans on areas where their interests converge, including trade, simplifying the tax code and national-security issues. Republicans left the White House meeting seeing opportunities for cooperation on possible cybersecurity legislation and authorization for the use of military force against Islamic State. But the GOP leaders also drew a sharp line on issues including immigration and energy. Colleen McCain Nelson and Michael R. Crittenden report.

Plus: Two bipartisan bills in the Senate would increase the number of visas and green cards available to high-tech workers.

SEN. BOXERS SEAT QUICKLY DRAWS POTENTIAL CANDIDATES: The race for Sen. Barbara Boxers seat is shaping up quickly in California, with Kamala Harris, the states attorney general, officially declaring her candidacy yesterday, and wealthy environmental activist Tom Steyer publicly suggesting that he might run. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has also said he will seriously consider a bid. The early jockeying by the Bay Area Democrats appears to be opening a long-standing divide between the states north and south. Alejandro Lazo reports.

Go here to see the original:
Capital Journal Daybreak: Podesta to Join Emerging Hillary Clinton Campaign | Obama Rolls Out Strategy Against ...

The Clinton 2016 camp is growing.

John Podesta, a senior White House adviser for President Obama, will step down from his post next month to serve in a senior role in Hillary Clinton's likely 2016 presidential bid, the Wall Street Journal first reported Tuesday.

Mr. Podesta, who served as Chief of Staff in former President Bill Clinton's second term, would likely take on the role of a campaign manager, according to reports, sending signals about Clinton's nascent campaign.

In Democratic circles, Podesta is a heavyweight.

"Few figures in the Democratic Party constellation carry as much intellectual heft as Mr Podesta," concluded the UK's Independent.

After serving under Mr. Clinton, he founded the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, DC. The Obama administration brought him on as a special counselor to the President about a year ago to help reinvigorate Mr. Obama's political fortunes.

Podesta has counseled Obama in both foreign and domestic policy, advising him on matters including Ebola, immigration, and climate change. He was the surprise force behind negotiations with the Chinese government aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

He is, as Politico once put it, "the quintessential Washington wise man."

Which is why Clinton is bringing him on her team.

And a Podesta hire sends clear signals.

Read the original:
John Podesta joins Clinton campaign: What that means for Hillary 2016

After I wrote this piece arguing that it made little sense for Mitt Romney to run for president a third time in 2016, I got lots and lots of tweets like this one:

Clinton has, after all, been around national politics longer than Romney. And she is just as much a throwback as he would be if he ran again. I get it. I just don't agree with it. (Cue: Well, that's because you are a Democrat and rooting for her to win. Um, no.) Here's why a second Clinton bid in 2016 makes more sense than a third Romney bid would.

1. It would be her second, not third, run for president. The more apt comparison for Clinton 2016 is Romney 2012. In both cases, they were seen as the runner-up to the eventual nominee in their party's most recent competitive primary. And there's a clear logic in coming in second and then running again to try and come in first. It's the logic that installed Romney as the favorite in 2012, a position he never relinquished. Making a return bid also allows a candidate Clinton in this case to make the "I did it once and learned what to do and what not to do" argument. Running for a third time in three straight elections, having lost twice before, makes it a lot harder to make that argument.

2. She's spent sixyears doing other things. Clinton went from her 2008 loss to serving for four years as the country's leading diplomat. That allows her to present herself as something different and new-ish to voters. She can draw rhetorically and from a policy perspective on what she's done since the last time she ran for president; "Representing the U.S. on the world stage, I learned that ... " is a sentence you can see Clinton using and using effectively as she re-pitches herself to voters. Romney, on the other hand, is just over two years removed from losing in 2012, and hasn't taken a job (or a position on a major issue) that would allow him to make the I'm-something-new-and-different argument easily. He's essentially the same person he was when he lost in 2012; his argument is, in a nutshell: "I came close last time and I was right about lots of things." Sure. But, neither of those things re-invent him in any way and his loss in 2012 suggests that some level of reinvention would be necessary if he wants to run and win in 2016.

3. She has no primary challenge. Clinton is running (or will be running) in as close to an empty primary field as any non-incumbent president could hope for in 2016. She is the de facto nominee before she has even said the words "I'm running." Romney, on the other hand, would face a crowded and talented field that is inarguably deeper and better than the one he bested in 2012. If Romney had a path even close to as (seemingly) easy as Clinton's, his third-time candidacy would make a whole lot more sense.

That word "sense" is the one that I and the Republicans I talk to not directly linked to Romney keep coming back to when talking about his potential 2016 candidacy. Typically in winning campaigns presidential or otherwise there's a logic behind the bid that not only makes sense to the candidate and his or inner circle but also to voters. Whether that's a rerun after coming in second (the preferred route to the nomination of most recent Republican nominees) or the need to have a complete break from the "old" ways of doing things in politics (Barack Obama's "hope" and "change" in 2008), there'susuallya sound logic to the candidacy.

Campaigns without an obvious logic to them Ted Kennedy's primary challenge to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 being the shining example tend not to work out so well. And the logic of Clinton's 2016 candidacy seems to be there. For Romney, not so much.

Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.

Read more:
No, Hillary Clinton Mitt Romney when it comes to 2016

Provided by The Hill Clintons confidence in an Iowa win grows

A year before the Iowa caucuses, confidence is building among Hillary Clinton allies that shell be able to win the first-in-the-nation presidential contest.

Clinton finished a disappointing third in 2008, but Clinton World is emboldened because no one like then-Sen. Barack Obama has emerged as a possible rival this time around.

There is no Barack Obama looming and ready to suit up and come in that I know of, said Jerry Crawford, who was the 2008 co-chair for the Clinton campaign in Iowa and is currently assisting Ready for Hillarys effort in the Hawkeye State. Thats a fundamentally different lay of the land.

Crawfords comments point to the confidence in Clintons camp that the most-like-Obama potential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), will not get in the race, despite a continued push for her to do so from the left.

On Tuesday, when asked by Fortune magazine if she would run for president, Warren simply said, No.

Regardless of Warren, Clinton allies arent taking any chances in Iowa.

Ready for Hillary, the super-PAC pushing Clinton to make a second bid for the White House, has devoted a significant amount of resources in the state, including direct financial contributions totaling more than $121,000 to local candidates and the Iowa Democratic Party. Officials say they have two staffers based in the state and have organized on the grassroots level in all 99 counties.

The super-PAC has logged quality time at 10 college campuses in Iowa to court young voters and launched its nationwide bus tour in the state.

A new Democratic Party chairman also will soon be in place in the state, and a Clinton friend, Andy McGuire, is in the running for the top spot, which will be decided in a Saturday election.

The rest is here:
Clintons confidence in an Iowa win grows