The Audacity to Be Authentic: Hillary Clinton’s Risky Hedge Against Obama

Conventional wisdom says it’s smart to attack an unpopular president. Conventional wisdom may be wrong.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Aug. 12, 2014, 5:47 a.m.

The rap against Hil­lary Clin­ton is that she’s a cyn­ic­al and con­niv­ing pub­lic fig­ure who hardly takes a breath without cal­cu­lat­ing the polit­ic­al ad­vant­age of a sigh. That ca­ri­ca­ture fueled cov­er­age of Clin­ton’s pub­lic break from Pres­id­ent Obama on glob­al af­fairs. “The be­ne­fits to Clin­ton are clear,” wrote Ju­liet Eilper­in, chan­nel­ing con­ven­tion­al wis­dom for The Wash­ing­ton Post.

But I’m not so sure the former sec­ret­ary of State has helped her­self polit­ic­ally. It may be that we’ve just wit­nessed a rare and risky act of au­then­ti­city.

To re­view, Clin­ton told Jef­frey Gold­berg of The At­lantic that Obama failed in Syr­ia by re­fus­ing to back rebel forces, as she had ad­vised. Clin­ton also dis­missed Obama’s em­phas­is on avoid­ing mis­takes over­seas that might lead to mil­it­ary con­front­a­tion — a philo­sophy he privately la­bels, “Don’t do stu­pid shit.” Echo­ing the pres­id­ent’s crit­ics, she told Gold­berg, “Great na­tions need or­gan­iz­ing prin­ciples — and ‘Don’t do stu­pid stuff’ is not an or­gan­iz­ing prin­ciple.”

On one level, this is a sens­ible move for a likely 2016 pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate. Her former boss’s job-ap­prov­al rat­ing hov­ers meekly around 40 per­cent, and an even smal­ler per­cent­age of Amer­ic­ans ap­pre­ci­ate the way he’s handled the spate of glob­al crises.

“It’s in her polit­ic­al in­terest to be­gin to dis­tance her­self from an un­pop­u­lar pres­id­ent and to drive home the fact that she’s risk-ready while Obama’s risk-ad­verse,” Aaron Dav­id Miller, vice pres­id­ent for new ini­ti­at­ives at the Wilson Cen­ter, told Eilper­in.

An­oth­er keen ob­serv­er, Mark Land­ler of The New York Times, wrote that Clin­ton is sug­gest­ing she would pro­ject Amer­ic­an power much dif­fer­ently than Obama. “His view is cau­tious, in­ward-look­ing, suf­fused with a sense of lim­its, while hers is mus­cu­lar, op­tim­ist­ic, un­abashedly old-fash­ioned.”

Set­ting aside the ob­vi­ous fact that “un­abashedly old-fash­ioned” is the ex­act op­pos­ite of Clin­ton’s ideal cam­paign slo­gan, I won­der wheth­er un­der­scor­ing her hawk­ish ways is, in the long run, more help­ful or hurt­ful. Re­mem­ber, there was a time early in the 2008 pres­id­en­tial cycle when con­ven­tion­al wis­dom dic­tated that 1) sup­port­ing the Ir­aq War was the smart polit­ic­al move; and 2) Sen. Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton would eas­ily win the Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion.

Her im­me­di­ate prob­lem is with the Demo­crat­ic base, which has al­ways viewed Clin­ton war­ily as an in­ter­ven­tion­ist. Mi­chael Co­hen, a fel­low at the pro­gress­ive Cen­tury Found­a­tion, told Politico that Clin­ton’s ap­proach was “out of touch with Demo­crats in 2008, and it’s out of touch now.”

In­flu­en­tial lib­er­al writer Joan Walsh of Salon.com called Clin­ton’s re­marks “sober­ing” and fired a warn­ing shot. “Clin­ton may think she can write off the anti-in­ter­ven­tion­ist left — again — and win the White House this time,” she wrote. “But she may find out she’s wrong this time, too.”

Clin­ton needs to brace for stiff chal­lenges in 2016, from in­side and out­side her party. There will be no coron­a­tion. The next sev­er­al elec­tion cycles are go­ing to be wildly un­pre­dict­able, as an elect­or­ate buf­feted by ti­tan­ic eco­nom­ic and so­ci­olo­gic­al shifts grows to de­mand the sort of dis­rup­tion of polit­ic­al and gov­ern­ment­al in­sti­tu­tions that they’ve wit­nessed else­where, most prom­in­ently in the re­tail, me­dia, and en­ter­tain­ment in­dus­tries.

OK, bash­ing Obama causes prob­lems with the Demo­crat­ic base. But she’s tri­an­gu­lat­ing away from both Obama and Pres­id­ent Bush to ap­peal to in­de­pend­ents in the gen­er­al elec­tion, right? I’m not so sure. Polls sug­gest that Obama is far more con­nec­ted to pub­lic sen­ti­ment than Clin­ton is.

A re­cent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 47 per­cent of re­spond­ents called for a less-act­ive role in world af­fairs, a lar­ger share than in sim­il­ar polling in 2001, 1997, and 1995. Last year, the Pew Re­search Cen­ter re­por­ted that a re­cord 53 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans want their coun­try to “mind its own busi­ness in­ter­na­tion­ally.”

The pub­lic is of two minds about Obama. They agree with his Amer­ica-first, don’t-rush-to-war philo­sophy; they just don’t like how he’s pro­ject­ing it. He dith­ers and waffles, and seems to be a men­tal step be­hind ad­versar­ies like Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vl­ad­mir Putin.

If I’m read­ing the pub­lic cor­rectly, Amer­ic­ans aren’t clam­or­ing for a mus­cu­lar and old-fash­ioned hawk as much as they want a prag­mat­ic lead­er, some­body they feel they can be proud of, who puts them first and keeps them safe. They want what Obama prom­ised to be.

Clin­ton may be aim­ing for that sweet spot between Bush’s bel­li­ger­ence and Obama’s neg­lect — what Karl Rove called the “Goldilocks of for­eign policy.” But I could think of safer, more cal­cu­lated ways of go­ing about it than stiff-arm­ing the Demo­crat­ic base and beat­ing war drums over Syr­ia.

In her mem­oir, Hard Choices, Clin­ton apo­lo­gized for her sup­port of the Ir­aq War, but she has made no secret of her in­ter­ven­tion­ist streak. She wanted more troops in Afgh­anistan than Obama, for ex­ample, and was not “swept up in the drama and ideal­ism” of the Ar­ab Spring like oth­er, young­er White House aides.

Call me naïve, but maybe Clin­ton is simply be­ing hon­est. After all, that’s really what Amer­ic­ans want in a lead­er.

UP­DATE: Maybe I jumped the gun. After weath­er­ing some push­back from the White House, in­clud­ing a snarky tweet by Obama con­sult­ant Dav­id Axel­rod, Clin­ton re­leased this state­ment through a spokes­man:

“Earli­er today, the Sec­ret­ary called Pres­id­ent Obama to make sure he knows that noth­ing she said was an at­tempt to at­tack him, his policies or his lead­er­ship. Sec­ret­ary Clin­ton has at every step of the way touted the sig­ni­fic­ant achieve­ments of his pres­id­ency, which she is honored to have been part of as his sec­ret­ary of state. While they’ve had hon­est dif­fer­ences on some is­sues, in­clud­ing as­pects of the wicked chal­lenge Syr­ia presents, she has ex­plained those dif­fer­ences in her book and at many points since then. Some are now choos­ing to hype those dif­fer­ences but they do not ec­lipse their broad agree­ment on most is­sues. Like any two friends who have to deal with the pub­lic eye, she looks for­ward to hug­ging it out when she they see each oth­er to­mor­row night.”

There are sev­er­al prob­lems with this state­ment. First, it’s in­ac­cur­ate. She cer­tainly did cri­ti­cize his policies, if not his lead­er­ship, most dir­ectly with the “stu­pid stuff” for­mu­la­tion. Second, it’s bor­der­line de­mean­ing, like a sub­or­din­ate try­ing to get back in the boss’s good graces. Clin­ton is an ac­com­plished per­son who has chal­lenged glass ceil­ings. She shouldn’t have to come even close to apo­lo­giz­ing for her opin­ions. Third, her in­ter­view wasn’t “hyped,” it was covered fairly, and now she’s try­ing to blame the mes­sen­ger. Fi­nally, it’s too cute by half, too Clin­to­nian. It doesn’t seem, well, au­then­t­ic. She’s try­ing to dis­tin­guish her policies from Obama’s without up­set­ting all the pres­id­ent’s men. She can’t have it all. 


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.