John Podesta broke hearts everywhere Tuesday evening when he stated definitively that two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would not go for a hat-trick in 2020.
This much was obvious on Jan. 15, but it’s nice to hear Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman say it out loud.
“She’s not running for president,” Podesta told CNN’s Erin Burnett. “She would have been a great president, but that’s in the past.”
“She says she’s not running. I take her at her word,” he said, adding that the Democratic Party has “got a lot of great candidates out there right now, and I think the Democratic primary is going to be a spirited one with a lot of great ideas coming forward.”
And with one appearance on CNN, Podesta may have finally put to rest the persistent rumors alleging Clinton is seriously considering a 2020 comeback.
But Podesta’s word was superfluous. It was clear even before his appearance on CNN that the 2016 Democratic nominee had no intention of running again for president. Indeed, there was a major indicator just a few weeks ago that signaled as much, and that was when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., announced her 2020 candidacy.
“I’m filing an exploratory committee for president of the United States, tonight,” the senator said in a Jan. 15 interview on CBS’ the Late Show, much to the delight of her host, Stephen Colbert.
Gillibrand followed-up in an email to supporters, saying, “I believe in right versus wrong, and wrong wins when we stay on the sidelines. That’s why I’m preparing to run for president of the United States, but I can’t do it alone.
The senator would never run unless she already knew, either directly or indirectly, that the Clintons themselves had no intention of running. She is where she is today because of the Clintons. The former first family practically handed her that Senate seat, all tied up with a bow. Gillibrand is their ward and the Clintons are her patrons, and they both act the part.
True, Gillibrand ran afoul of the former first family in 2017 when she tried to ingratiate herself with the #MeToo crowd by throwing Bill Clinton under the bus. But the senator has since tried to correct that misstep. Following a swift rebuke from Clinton loyalists, the senator has returned to her original method for answering questions about the former president’s history of sexual abuse, which is to redirect the conversation in literally any other direction.
To put it in the plainest terms possible: Gillibrand wouldn’t dare run against the massive, deep-rooted, and well-funded Clinton political machine that made her senate career. She is still loyal, and her 2017 remarks were a one-off.
