New York Times
By Jonathan Martin and Nicholas Confessore
May 1, 2015
Months
before Hillary Rodham Clinton started delivering Democratic primary
voters a liberal-minded message about a “stacked deck” in favor of the
wealthy and the need
for criminal-justice reform, she met quietly at Esca, a Mario Batali
restaurant in Midtown Manhattan, with four powerful labor leaders.
There,
in February, she treated representatives of the biggest teachers’,
service employees’ and government workers’ unions to a seafood dinner
and a lengthy discussion
of policy issues. Her meaning was unmistakable: She wanted them to feel
like an important part of her coming campaign.
But Mrs. Clinton is not just conveying veiled messages to her party’s left-leaning base. She is also receiving them.
On
Tuesday, Richard L. Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., gave an
address here aimed ostensibly at any White House contender. Without
naming Mrs. Clinton, he urged
candidates for president to resist “cautious half-measures.”
He
also called for “a commitment, from the candidate down through his or
her economic team,” to steer a progressive agenda to completion. A
senior labor official later
called it the most important line in Mr. Trumka’s speech.
That
is because he was publicly amplifying, however obliquely, an argument
that liberals have made to Mrs. Clinton and her team more bluntly in
private: They do not wish
to see the likes of Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, both
former treasury secretaries to Bill Clinton, become fixtures in her
circle.
It
is unclear if Mrs. Clinton will bow to such demands; a senior campaign
aide said only that she receives a range of policy advice.
On
Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-proclaimed
socialist, said he would seek the Democratic nomination. But the push
and pull between Mrs. Clinton’s
pursuit of the liberal base and its desire for assurance before
consummation may be a more significant source of tension within the
party.
Mrs.
Clinton cheerily welcomed Mr. Sanders into the race, even as she works
to deny Mr. Sanders or any other liberal an issue on which to bloody her
from the left.
She
and her top aides have begun an aggressive charm offensive, calling,
emailing, meeting and dining with scores of progressive officials and
activists. John Deeth, a
well-read blogger in Iowa City (“the People’s Republic of Johnson
County,” he joked), said that Matt Paul, Mrs. Clinton’s Iowa director,
called him after she announced.
“Mostly he listened,” recalled Mr. Deeth, who said he would probably remain neutral in the primary.
With
labor opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, Mrs. Clinton’s
staff has been in touch with Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio,
who has been battling
President Obama over the agreement.
“People
are seeing that the Democratic Party is again standing for things,” Mr.
Brown said of the energy on the left. (He added that he was not ready
to commit to Mrs.
Clinton’s candidacy — but had “zero” interest in a presidential bid of
his own.)
Liberal
organizations say they are gearing up to mobilize their memberships
around issues like campaign reform, trade and net neutrality. Their
goal, leaders of some of
the groups said, is to make clear to Mrs. Clinton that committing to
their issues could be the difference between tens of thousands of
additional enthusiastic volunteers going door to door for her and making
contributions to her campaign or simply casting
their ballot for her.
“The
American people are pretty smart, and they’re used to being lied to in
campaigns,” said Becky Bond, the political director of Credo, a
progressive group that has
raised about $76 million for liberal causes and has many members in
states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. “They want some kind of
reassurance that Hillary Clinton will back up her words with actions.”
The
apprehensiveness is two-way. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reached out
through intermediaries to campaign finance activists, some of whom have
been privately discussing
a public effort in New Hampshire to pressure her on the issue. Campaign
reform groups, in turn, have argued that she will be unable to persuade
voters to back an activist government agenda unless she first addresses
their concerns about Washington corruption.
Mrs.
Clinton faces even more intense pressure to confront income inequality
and make clear she is not beholden to the business-friendly policies
preferred by some of her
contributors. While aligning herself with the left on cultural issues
like immigration and same-sex marriage, she has so far been less
explicit on economic policies — avoiding taking a position, for example,
on a controversial trade pact with Pacific Rim countries.
“No
candidate can be all things to all people,” Mr. Trumka said in his
speech, demanding that White House aspirants resist “the politics of
hedged bets.”
That
afternoon, Mrs. Clinton’s political director, Amanda Renteria, sent an
email to leading union officials saying that the campaign had tapped an
official from the United
Food and Commercial Workers union as Mrs. Clinton’s “labor outreach
director.”
“Filling
this position has been a top priority for us given the importance of
labor issues to Hillary and everyday Americans across the country,” Ms.
Renteria wrote, noting
Mrs. Clinton’s “longstanding relationships” with labor and her desire
to nurture those ties “as a team.”
But
a far weightier personnel matter is who will serve as Mrs. Clinton’s
economic advisers, both on the campaign and, should she win, as
president. Many on the left, who
wish but are deeply skeptical that she will surround herself with
advisers from the Elizabeth Warren school, believe both Mr. Obama and
Mr. Clinton were overly captive to Wall Street-oriented economic aides.
Mrs.
Clinton’s aides noted that she is taking economic advice from outspoken
progressives like Gary Gensler, a former Wall Street regulator.
But
Dean Baker, a liberal economist, said, “I would be very surprised if we
had a President Clinton and the administration didn’t include the usual
suspects.”
Mr.
Baker, who has been frank about the need for a transaction tax on
financial investments, said he was called by an adviser to Mrs. Clinton
soliciting his input and
ideas, but was unmoved by the approach.
“They’re
being polite,” he said. “But I’m not optimistic. It may change if blood
is drawn by Sanders or somebody. Maybe then they’ll have to sit down
and talk seriously.”
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment