Hillary Adviser: ‘Nobody Should Take Us for Granted’

A warning to liberals (and conservatives): When it comes to Hillary Clinton, you can’t assume a damn thing.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the first annual Richard C. Holbrooke lecture at the State Department in Washington, DC.
TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images
Ron Fournier
Feb. 3, 2014, 4:47 a.m.

If I’ve learned one thing from know­ing and cov­er­ing Hil­lary Clin­ton for 25 years, it’s this: Don’t as­sume a damn thing.

People as­sumed that she couldn’t over­come skep­ti­cism of fem­in­ists and North­ern trans­plants (she was both) to cham­pi­on edu­ca­tion re­forms in Arkan­sas. She over­came. “I think we’ve elec­ted the wrong Clin­ton,” le­gis­lat­or Lloyd George, lead­er of the good-old-boy caucus, said after she presen­ted pro­posed re­forms to a le­gis­lat­ive com­mit­tee in 1983.

People as­sumed that she’d be a quiet part­ner in Gov. Bill Clin­ton’s closely fought 1990 reelec­tion bid. Wrong: She evis­cer­ated her hus­band’s Demo­crat­ic rival in a state Cap­it­ol am­bush.

People as­sumed that she’d shrink in­to a tra­di­tion­al first lady’s role after be­com­ing a po­lar­iz­ing fig­ure in the 1992 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. Wrong: She over­saw her hus­band’s sig­na­ture le­gis­lat­ive ini­ti­at­ive, the poorly drawn and man­aged health care pack­age that col­lapsed in Con­gress.

People as­sumed that she’d leave her hus­band after he had an af­fair with a White House in­tern and lied about it. Wrong.

When I re­por­ted that she was con­sid­er­ing a cam­paign for the Sen­ate in New York, people scoffed. One news or­gan­iz­a­tions quoted sources “close to Clin­ton” in­sist­ing that she would not run. People as­sumed that she would lose that Sen­ate race in 2000, that she would win the pres­id­ency in 2008, and that she would re­ject Barack Obama’s of­fers of a Cab­in­et post.

Get my point?

Don’t as­sume that she runs for pres­id­ent. The deep­er you dive in­to her in­ner circle and talk to friends who are not fin­an­cially and pro­fes­sion­ally in­ves­ted in a 2016 cam­paign, the more likely you’ll find people en­cour­aging her not to run — or at least to avoid get­ting stam­peded. I’d put the odds at 80-20 in fa­vor of her run­ning, and yet I know I shouldn’t be sur­prised by any­thing she does.

Don’t as­sume she wins. I’ve writ­ten this be­fore: Des­pite her many strengths (“What I Learned Cov­er­ing Hil­lary Clin­ton”), noth­ing is pre­dict­able about mod­ern polit­ics, and Clin­ton has par­tic­u­lar weak­nesses (“7 Ways Clin­ton and Christie Could Bungle 2016”).

Don’t as­sume she’ll bow to the Left. My col­league Alex Seitz-Wald makes a well-ar­gued case that pro­gress­ives will steer her 2016 agenda be­cause they’ve es­sen­tially already made the Demo­crat­ic Party more lib­er­al. In “How Pro­gress­ives Will Pull Hil­lary Left­ward,” Alex writes:

No mat­ter how much money she can raise, Clin­ton will need the Demo­crat­ic base for its en­ergy and or­gan­iz­ing, she’ll need its small-dol­lar grass­roots dona­tions, and she’ll need it to rally to her de­fense when she gets at­tacked. If she wants to cre­ate an aura of hav­ing united the party be­hind her, she needs to bring the base on board. And all of that gives the rank and file lever­age.

I dis­agree. I think the lever­age lies with Clin­ton. More im­port­antly, that’s what her ad­visers be­lieve. They know that if Clin­ton is giv­en the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion by vir­tu­al ac­clam­a­tion, she will be able to man­euver freely to the middle when her per­son­al views and polit­ic­al ne­ces­sity re­quire it. She would need the pro­gress­ive base, of course, but less so than a tra­di­tion­al can­did­ate.

“Nobody, not even our al­lies, should take us for gran­ted,” said one of her old­est friends and polit­ic­al ad­visers, who spoke to me this week­end on con­di­tion of an­onym­ity, be­cause nobody is al­lowed to dis­cuss their private con­ver­sa­tions with Clin­ton. Her views on Wall Street and for­eign policy are already more cent­rist than the Demo­crat­ic base. This ad­viser also poin­ted to trade, school choice, en­ti­tle­ments, and wel­fare re­form as oth­er po­ten­tial points of tri­an­gu­la­tion.

Yes, I know. This ad­viser could be spin­ning me. It’s been done be­fore. That’s why pro­gress­ives (and con­ser­vat­ives, for dif­fer­ent reas­ons) should not as­sume a damn thing about Clin­ton. They should care­fully read a piece by an­oth­er Na­tion­al Journ­al col­league. In “What Hil­lary’s Not Telling Us,” Beth Re­in­hard noted that Clin­ton’s views on sev­er­al hot-but­ton is­sues are un­known be­cause of her re­l­at­ive si­lence since 2008. She wrote:

The gap in Clin­ton’s pub­lic re­cord between her first pres­id­en­tial cam­paign and the mo­ment if and when she launches a second one of­fers both op­por­tun­ity and risk. Op­por­tun­ity for a bag­gage-laden vet­er­an to re­in­tro­duce her­self to voters and re­pos­i­tion her­self to be more ap­peal­ing to the rising pop­u­list Left. Risk, in that crit­ics will scru­tin­ize the re­in­tro­duc­tion and re­pos­i­tion­ing for flip-flops.

This is what little I know about Clin­ton: The greatest gap is of­ten the one between our as­sump­tions and her real­ity.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4659) }}

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×