About a month ago, in a now-infamous column, the ethically-challenged Bob Novak reported that Hillary Clinton’s “agents” are gossiping in Democratic circles that the Clinton campaign has “scandalous information” about Barack Obama, which they reportedly will not share. This, you’ll remember, led to an ugly spat between the campaigns, though the Clinton campaign insisted throughout that it had no secret dirt on its rival.
The flap faded eventually, but I couldn’t help but think of Novak’s column now that Clinton is making oblique references to unstated “surprises” associated with her rivals.
Clinton didn’t mention specifics in the taping of an interview on “Iowa Press” this morning, but drew a contrast with unnamed rivals that echoes Bill Shaheen’s now-notorious claim that unexplored elements of Obama’s candidacy will make him an easy Republican target.
“I’ve been tested, I’ve been vetted,” she said. “There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘I didn’t think of that, my goodness, what’s that going to mean?'”
Taken at face value, there’s nothing particularly striking about Clinton’s comments. One can interpret them plainly: the right has combed through her adult life with a fine-tooth comb, and everything that could come out, has come out. That should give primary voters some confidence in her chances.
But there’s a broader context to this, which makes the “no surprises” tack appear less innocuous.
Indeed, it’s not even subtle. Given Billy Sheehan’s comments this week about Obama’s teenaged drug use, Clinton adopting a “no surprises” theme hardly seems coincidental.
TNR’s Michael Crowley was also on hand and said Clinton’s comments threw reporters “into a low-grade frenzy.”
Hillary smiled with the patience of a grandmother stuck babysitting bratty kids as reporters barraged her with breathless questions about whether Obama’s drug history is the sort of surprise she’s talking about and whether she thinks general-election voters might punish him for it.
But Hillary wasn’t biting. “I am only talking about myself,” she insisted, looking unusually resplendent in a dark suit with a red blouse and multicolored necklace. Nor would she bite when asked by MSNBC’s David Shuster whether she would flatly declare that “a candidate’s indiscretions as a teenager should not be an issue for voters.” After what I sensed was a moment of uncertainty she concluded, “It’s certainly not an issue in my campaign.” (emphasis in the original)
Clinton is a sharp and savvy campaigner, and she has to realize that comments like these, given the Shaheen controversy, are going to raise eyebrows.
For a year, practically every speech, ad, and pitch has been about touting her experience. The campaign has been quite disciplined about it. But in the stretch run, her campaign seems to be trying to shift to an electability argument, which apparently includes concerns about “surprises” that may befall unnamed rivals.
The campaign really is playing with fire here.