Memo to Hillary Clinton: ‘You’re the Problem’

Best bet for a third Clinton term is if she runs as the “Real Hillary” — warm, open, and honest.

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
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Dec. 19, 2013, midnight

The fol­low­ing is a faux memo, al­though its con­tents are based upon my in­ter­views with people close to Hil­lary Clin­ton. They spoke on con­di­tion of an­onym­ity be­cause: a) Clin­ton has not de­cided wheth­er to run for pres­id­ent; b) she has not au­thor­ized any­body to talk about 2016 de­lib­er­a­tions; c) her friends, fam­ily, and ad­visers are still in the early stages of de­bat­ing strategies. This rep­res­ents one point of view.

To: Hil­lary

From: A Few of Us

Sub­ject: Anti-Hil­lary

The last we spoke as a group, you made it clear your mind wasn’t made up about 2016. We get it: You’re tired, and it’s too soon. And you’re right: By this time next year, you’ll know for cer­tain wheth­er you’ve got the fire in your belly, and we’ll be bet­ter able to judge voters’ at­ti­tudes to­ward a “third Clin­ton term.” (Sorry, we know you hate that phrase, but it makes a point.) Every­body on the team agrees you de­serve some space.

But a few of us felt com­pelled to jot down some “un­of­fi­cial” thoughts for you to di­gest dur­ing the hol­i­days. We’re a bit wor­ried about the nature of the team’s dis­cus­sions so far. What both­ers us is this: The talks are al­most ex­clus­ively tac­tic­al, tra­di­tion­al, and safe — based on a con­sensus that your brand is smartly po­si­tioned for 2016 and that you would be the pro­hib­it­ive fa­vor­ite. A few of us think dif­fer­ently. We think:

Buf­feted by jar­ring so­cial change, the Amer­ic­an pub­lic is dis­il­lu­sioned with:

  • Wash­ing­ton, es­pe­cially the grid­lock.
  • Polit­ics in gen­er­al, es­pe­cially the phoni­ness.  
  • In­sti­tu­tions, es­pe­cially the in­ef­fect­ive­ness.

As the 2016 elec­tion fast ap­proaches, most Amer­ic­ans in­tel­lec­tu­ally un­der­stand the im­port­ance of your ex­per­i­ence as first lady, sen­at­or, and sec­ret­ary of State. Your per­son­al ap­prov­al rat­ings are high­er than those of Pres­id­ent Obama. You should be proud. But, as you’ve heard us say, Amer­ic­ans make most of their de­cisions — from buy­ing homes and cars to de­cid­ing where to shop and how to vote — not with their heads, but with their guts. By that meas­ure, we’ve seen res­ults of psy­cho-so­cial sur­veys and of fo­cus groups that raise red flags.

Most Amer­ic­ans, in­clud­ing many of your sup­port­ers, con­sider you to be:

  • A creature of Wash­ing­ton.
  • In­tensely polit­ic­al (think of words like “cal­cu­lat­ing” and “am­bi­tious”).
  • An in­sti­tu­tion (and not just be­cause of your age. The Clin­ton fam­ily it­self is an in­sti­tu­tion, one freighted with bag­gage).

And so your biggest hurdle isn’t your age, the pres­id­ent’s re­cord, your hus­band, or even Benghazi/White­wa­ter, etc. It’s you, Hil­lary. You’re the prob­lem — that is, if you once again present your­self as an in­sti­tu­tion of Wash­ing­ton await­ing a polit­ic­al coron­a­tion. To win, you must be the anti-Hil­lary. You need to blast the pub­lic’s ca­ri­ca­ture of you to smithereens and re­place it with what we know as the Real Hil­lary.

In 2015-16, you must be:

  • Ac­cess­ible. Be a con­stant pres­ence on Twit­ter, Face­book, and oth­er so­cial me­dia (you, not your staff). Sur­round your­self all day with re­port­ers and pho­to­graph­ers. Ex­haust them with “¦ you. Make John Mc­Cain’s “Straight Talk Ex­press” look like a buttoned-down op­er­a­tion. Op­er­ate with a flex­ible sched­ule that al­lows for off-the-cuff won­der­ful­ness.
  • Hon­est and Au­then­t­ic. Take tough stands and state them clearly. Make mis­takes and own up to them. As a mat­ter of fact, the only thing we should sched­ule for you every day is the “Daily Mis­take and Apo­logy.” We’re kid­ding … sort of.
  • Vul­ner­able. Re­mem­ber chok­ing up in New Hamp­shire? You looked hu­man. People like hu­mans. Don’t be afraid of look­ing tired or even grumpy; those are emo­tions that people can re­late to, if you ex­plain them. That horsey laugh of yours? Don’t hide it; you’re a funny, warm per­son. Let people see you. Be. Hil­lary.
  • Flex­ible. We live in a time of un­pre­ced­en­ted change, when in­sti­tu­tions ad­apt or per­ish. Be an in­sti­tu­tion that ad­apts. Be quick to change your strategy, your mes­sage, your staff (fire us first!) and, yes, even your hair­style. Tut-tut­ting be damned.
  • Small. People are tired of big in­sti­tu­tions. Travel light and run a lean op­er­a­tion. We’ve told people this for years but they don’t be­lieve us: While nobody feels a coun­try’s pain like your hus­band, you are bet­ter than Pres­id­ent Clin­ton in liv­ing rooms and at kit­chen tables. Far bet­ter. You are a mas­ter of the small talk and small ges­tures that still make a dif­fer­ence in polit­ics, es­pe­cially in states like Iowa and New Hamp­shire. Show them.
  • Com­pet­ent. This goes without say­ing, but that di­vided, plod­ding cam­paign op­er­a­tion you ran in 2008 didn’t work. It also sent a bad sig­nal to voters about how you might run their gov­ern­ment. A mod­el for your 2016 cam­paign would be (you’re go­ing to hate this) no-drama Obama. Also, your staff is one way to shat­ter the per­cep­tion that you’re a po­lar­izer. Hire a Re­pub­lic­an or two — ideally, people who worked for the Bush-Cheney White House and later (pub­licly) dis­owned the polit­ics of di­vi­sion. Sur­prise them.
  • Pop­u­list: Our de­tailed thoughts on your agenda will come in a sep­ar­ate memo but un­der­stand this: The next pres­id­ent of the United States (Demo­crat or Re­pub­lic­an) will be a pop­u­list. In­come dis­par­ity and de­clin­ing so­cial mo­bil­ity are clichés in Wash­ing­ton, but in the rest of Amer­ica, they are facts of life. Middle-class voters, es­pe­cially, are angry and scared, and they’re hungry for a lead­er who will carry them across that bridge built for the 21st cen­tury. Bor­row from pop­u­lists on the left (Eliza­beth War­ren’s at­tacks on Wall Street) and the right (Rand Paul’s at­tacks on NSA sur­veil­lance) to be the sin­gu­lar can­did­ate for our troubled times.

In ad­di­tion, you could play on voters’ dis­trust of gov­ern­ment by reach­ing back to the first Clin­ton White House (no­tice, we said “first”) for a ser­i­ous plat­form on “re­in­vent­ing gov­ern­ment.” What if, for ex­ample, you prom­ised to spend your first 100 days in of­fice fo­cused ex­clus­ively on mak­ing good pro­grams (read: Demo­crat­ic pro­grams) even bet­ter — say, Head Start and Obama­care? Im­pli­citly con­ced­ing that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion dropped the ball on gov­ern­ing, you would earn back the pub­lic’s trust in gov­ern­ment be­fore launch­ing new ini­ti­at­ives. FDR did something like this be­fore launch­ing the New Deal. 

Pope Fran­cis has re­minded us of the power of small ges­tures. Without chan­ging the Vat­ic­an’s ideo­logy one iota, he has trans­formed the way people think about the Cath­ol­ic Church, one sym­bol­ic act at a time. And con­sider the par­al­lels between your job and that of the pope, an old man run­ning an an­cient in­sti­tu­tion marred by scan­dal and in­com­pet­ence. You can be just as trans­form­at­ive. Ac­tu­ally, if you run for pres­id­ent, you must be. That’s what a few of us think.

What We're Following See More »
LORDY, THERE ARE TAPES
Cohen Secretly Recorded Trump Discussing Hush Money Payment
33 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments" to former Playboy model Karen McDougal "who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump." The FBI seized the recording during an April raid of Cohens office. "The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election," which may violate federal campaign finance laws. Days before the election, Trump campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks denied any knowledge of the payment, and said that the allegations were "totally untrue."

Source:
IN NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED, NO LESS
Rep. Hurd Says Trump Being Manipulated by Putin
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

Conservative Republican Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, a former CIA agent, says in a New York Times op-ed this morning that Russian intelligence is "manipulating" President Trump. "The leader of the free world actively participated in a Russian disinformation campaign that legitimized Russian denial and weakened the credibility of the United States to both our friends and foes abroad," he writes.

Source:
JUST AS SENATE VOTES ITS DISAPPROVAL
Trump Backtracks on Putin's "Incredible Offer"
19 hours ago
THE LATEST
ARMS CONTROL, SYRIA WERE DISCUSSED
Russians Refer to "Verbal Agreements" with Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Two days after President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, Russian officials offered a string of assertions about what the two leaders had achieved. 'Important verbal agreements' were reached at the Helsinki meeting, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, told reporters in Moscow Wednesday, including preservation of the New Start and INF agreements," and cooperation in Syria.

Source:
WAS "GRUDGINGLY" CONVINCED
Trump Was Shown Proof of Russian Interference Before Inauguration
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election. The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation. Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login