Hillary Clinton has copied the populist, anti-corporate rhetoric of Sen. Elizabeth Warren partly in the hopes of keeping the Massachusetts Democrat, or any other liberal challenger, out of the 2016 presidential race, some liberal activists say.
“That’s where Clinton is going to be vulnerable [in the Democratic primary], if she is vulnerable at all,” said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future.
By co-opting Warren’s economic message early on, Clinton takes away one of the main rationales for other Democrats to run. “If she is going to be challenged, she is going to be challenged from the left,” Borosage said.
It’s also where the votes are — particularly the Democratic ones she doesn’t have currently locked up, notes Karlyn Bowman, polling expert and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
“She’s picking up Elizabeth Warren’s rhetoric because she realizes how strongly that plays with the Democratic voters, particularly those who are really interested in the campaign at this point,” Bowman said.
Liberal activists are applauding Clinton’s evolution, saying it is good politics to boot: “Hillary is striking a more populist tone for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren is the most sought-after campaigner for Democrats nationwide this year: Warren’s economic populist message … is what excites voters,” said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
Clinton certainly has been making strenuous efforts. Campaigning for Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., last week, she told a St. Paul crowd she had supported measures like regulating financial derivatives and limiting CEO pay since before the financial crisis in 2008.
“There’s a lot of unfinished business to make sure we don’t end up once again with big banks taking big risks and leaving taxpayers holding the bag,” Clinton said.
While campaigning for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley in Massachusetts on Friday, Clinton claimed to be a Warren fan: “I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get it.”
She even challenged the definition of the word “employer” at the event, saying: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”
Few expect Clinton to lose the Democratic nomination should she run. There is no other candidate with better name recognition, and she will easily out-fundraise anyone else, too.
But anything that could draw out the contest could leave the campaign wounded in the general election. The Democratic Party has been particularly concerned about challenges from the Left ever since liberal activist Ralph Nader’s third-party bid in 2000, which many blame for costing Al Gore the presidency.
Warren has repeatedly said she has no plans to make a bid, once even saying in a candid “hot mic” moment after a May speech in Washington, “nothing can change my mind.”
But in a recent People Magazine interview, she seemed to soften on that, saying, “If there’s any lesson I’ve learned in the last five years, it’s don’t be so sure about what lies ahead. There are amazing doors that could open.”
Virtually all of Clinton’s other potential challengers — most notably, Vermont’s independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb — would have stronger records among liberals on economic issues.
It may be a particular concern for Clinton because her husband’s presidency embraced free trade and other policies opposed by the economic Left. “Bill campaigned as more of a populist than he governed,” Borosage noted.
Clinton herself is a former Walmart board of directors member who has made millions in recent years for giving speeches to financial organizations like Goldman Sachs and Fidelity and trade groups like the National Automobile Dealers Association.
Her more recent speeches have tended to highlight the issues where she does have a longer record of support, such as raising the minimum wage and supporting laws requiring equal pay for women.
Having been secretary of State may ironically help her in this regard, Borosage added. It has kept her in the public eye while also keeping her removed from most economic debates, giving her a chance to remake her image. “She hasn’t had to talk about this stuff at all” during the Obama years, he noted.
