Hillary the Decider?

On yesterday's Clinton campaign conference call, I was particularly struck by this exchange, abridged slightly, between Slate's John Dickerson and Clinton spokesman Phil Singer:

Dickerson: The expertise that Senator Clinton is claiming on the economy seems kind of at odds with the fact that you've got a broad ideologically-diverse group of experts who basically panned this idea of lifting the gas tax and one of the reasons they panned it is that they don't believe that the money is going to regular folks is actually going to happen. So, how is it that so many people of so many different backgrounds could be so wrong on this and are there any independent experts used that can give us some intellectual ballast for the Clinton plan?

Singer: There are times when a President will take a position when a broad concensus of "experts" will agree and there are times when a President will do something that a group of "experts" does not agree with and this is something that Senator Clinton believes is the right policy... Presidents listen to advice and then act and that is what Senator Clinton is doing.

This sounded nauseatingly familiar to me. The call ran short before I could ask a follow-up, so I sent it to them via email yesterday.

(You were) asked if you could produce any independent experts who think that the gas tax holiday is a good idea, and you could not. You said, essentially, that a President listens to experts and then acts, in this case ignoring all of them. How would you differentiate that from something like George W Bush and the Iraq Study Group?

Here's the complete audio from the call. After the jump, more on this conference call, and the difference between Hillary, the Decider and George W. Bush, the Decider.



Before I get to the Decider question, I want to share with you the entirety of my exchange with Howard Wolfson.

TC: I have two questions. First of all, Senator Clinton has been reaching out to blue-collar voters, most recently commuting to work with and pumping gas with a steel worker yesterday or the day before, but then on The O'Reilly Factor last night, she said, and I quote, "Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation." I think that that begs the question, is she trying to have it both ways...like, who is she really going to look out for? And my second question has to do with that "Screw 'em" comment. When we last left off, you had produced three people who couldn't remember her making that comment, but she hadn't denied making it herself. I want to know if Senator Clinton has denied making that comment herself at this point?

Wolfson: The same question is, she said she denied making it at the time. I'm not sure if she was asked. This is a little bit of an old chestnut both in terms of when it was made and in terms of the questions we've been getting in the last several days, so it was denied at the time. I don't know if she was ever asked.

I'm not sure I understand your first question. Senator Clinton and her husband have clearly been beneficiaries of living in a great country and they have done well since leaving the White House. No one disputes that, everyone knows that, but she is still waking up every day and fighting hard on behalf of working people. The reason why we have done so well with blue-collar voters and working people in Ohio and Pennsylvania, in particular, is because working people know that and they appreciate it. Maybe I did not understand the question, but that's my answer.

TC: But the statement that she made, it sounds to me like she is saying "God bless rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities for our country."

Wolfson: No, no, no! She said "God blessed, B-L-E-S-S-E-D." Right?

TC: That's not how I heard it, but I can go back and check, though.

Wolfson: No, I understand. She is fortunate to have done well in this country and she thanks God for her blessings and, as many fortunate people do, the important point is that when she talked about this that people like her and Bill O'Reilly probably have been blessed and they ought to be paying their fair share. She said that this often comes up in the context of what to do about the Bush tax cuts and she says that people like she and Bill O'Reilly ought to be paying the rates that they were during the Clinton..., before President Bush passed them; that they have a responsibility to make sure that prosperity in our country is a shared prosperity. Whenever I've heard her talking about this, it has been in the context of, that we ought to have a country where people have the opportunity to be successful but people who enjoy success because of the blessings of this country ought to be willing to make sure that we have an economy where prosperity is shared, including through our tax system. I never heard her say anything different from that.

First of all, I went back and listened, and there is zero doubt that she said the reverse-Tiny-Tim-esque "Rich People. God Bless Us."Which kind of renders the rest of Wolfson's reply moot. As for the "Screw 'em" question, I think what he was trying to say was, "I thought you guys forgot about that."

He claimed not to understand my question, but I thought it was pretty clear. Now, why does any of this matter? Do I really think that Hillary Clinton is toasting cigar-chomping, handlebar-mustachioed dandies over her thorough bamboozlement of working class voters?

Of course not, but the statement was clearly a wink to affluent voters, a way of saying, "Sure, I want to help working stiffs, but don't worry, I won't hurt us rich folks too badly."

Which is smart politics, as far as it goes, but tone-deaf on the heels of trying to paint Barack Obama as an elitist, then not being able to pump her own gas while proclaiming that she does have friends who tell her what it's like to get hosed at the pump. It is the kind of quote that the Clinton campaign would have turned into a bumper sticker had Obama said it.

What amazes me is the brazen way Wolfson just lies about it. I wonder if he had that lie ready, or did he come up with it on the fly? Now, here's the trick: He knows we can all go back and check, but by the time we do that and follow up with him, he can call it an "old chestnut."

Now, on to the subject of ignoring all the experts, and just deciding. The Clinton campaign has not responded to my follow-up question yet, but that's okay, I think I can handle this one. Singer offered up a wrong-headed defense. He can't just say, "Hey, it sounded good when we thought of it."

But by invoking the "Decider Defense," he further legitimizes the fallacy that decisiveness is, in itself, a virtue.

The Clinton team is deft and nimble at keeping itself a moving target, with a bag of tricks that would make Felix the Cat jealous. Even Clinton opponents express admiration at the sheer nerve and breakneck swerve of the campaign. Time will tell if they can stay ahead, or will it all catch up to them.

Standing at Hillary's podium in Philadelphia, I wondered if, believing that I truly could fix what's wrong with America, there was anything I wouldn't say or do to make sure I was given that chance. Anyone worthy of the job knows the answer to that. The trick is saying and doing things that help.