Hillary Clinton's immigration roundtable at Rancho High School in Las Vegas.
If presidential campaigns are about the future and not the past, then Hillary Clinton is positioning herself perfectly. There was no starker contrast this week than the one between
Clinton's immigration roundtable and the rollout of Republican presidential bids
like that of Mike Huckabee.
While Tony Orlando wooed Huckabee's Arkansas crowd with his No. 1 hit from 1973, "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree," Clinton opened herself up to questions from a half dozen young undocumented immigrants in Las Vegas.
It quite literally set up a 2016 competition between a yearning for the days of old and an embrace of the country's future. For that and many other reasons, Clinton's Tuesday event could prove to be a defining moment in her campaign.
First, it was an absolute break from her 2008 campaign's rather conservative approach on immigration issues. As many outlets noted, in one of her worst debate moments of the '08 cycle, Clinton came out against state-issued driver's licenses for the undocumented. Not only did she reverse course on that stance within the first week of her campaign, she left it in the dust as a consideration this week.
For more on Clinton 2.0, head below the fold.
Second, it blew away the expectations of most Democrats and immigration activists alike. Activists wanted to hear her back citizenship and pledge her strong support for immigration reform (check); they wanted her to commit to extending Obama's immigration actions but she event even further, pledging to expand on them (check); she talked about not breaking apart families (check); she even talked about reforming the detention system (check). She fell short of pledging to pass immigration reform in her first year but committed to making it a top priority (half check). In short she demonstrated a real commitment to the issue and set a higher standard for all Democrats on immigration. And make no mistake, the position of the party's front-runner has an undeniable trickle-down effect on other candidates across the country.
Third, it's a sign that she's really listening to her progressive base, which in this case means Dreamers, in particular. In fact, it's hard to think of any Democratic constituency that has pushed Clinton harder in the early stages of her candidacy (way before she even announced) than Dream activists. They confronted her in a rope line in Iowa last September, asking about her thoughts on Obama's "broken" promise to the immigration community. Clinton responded, "I think we have to keep working—can't stop ever working." She kept moving right along under the cover of her dark sunglasses. The following month, they agitated again on two different occasions as Clinton campaigned for Democratic candidates pre-midterms.
Bottom line: Dreamers made their wishes clear in no uncertain terms, and Clinton has now responded in kind. Some may call that pandering. But given the lessons of the last six years—both from the standpoint of governance and electoral politics—that's a very health give and take between activists and a candidate.
Fourth, it suggests that her campaign aides are either more progressive than those from 2008, or that she simply ignored their counsel. Markos bet on the former in a post earlier this week, and I tend to agree. It looks like Hillary 2.0—featuring chief campaign strategists like Robby Mook and John Podesta vs. Bill Clinton's old pals, Mark Penn and Douglas Schoen circa '08.
Fifth, it was a total departure from the defining theme of her husband's presidency: centrism. The centrist approach here would have been to simply support a path to citizenship. Frankly, to do anything less would have been to abandon her party entirely, since most Democrats have supported it for years and it was included in the 2013 immigration reform bill negotiated and passed by a Democratically controlled Senate.
Doing that alone would have been the safe thing—it's got majority support nationwide and, in the vein of a more centrist approach, going further wouldn't be necessary because it already positions her at least slightly to the left of every Republican candidate. As cautious politicking goes, one might think, why would Latinos vote for a Republican who doesn't support citizenship over a Democrat who does anyway? Despite that, she did go further, into what some Democrats considered the dicey territory of executive action and Republicans have been dubbing "executive amnesty."
These are the signs of a candidate who is shedding the skin of yesterday in preparation for tomorrow. They do not guarantee that Hillary Clinton will do the right thing if elected to office, something Dreamers are well aware of and already articulating. As progressives recall from 2008, the election of any single candidate is no guarantee—it is merely the beginning. Follow through undoubtedly demands vigilance.
But this week's developments reflect a candidate who knows the times have changed, the politics have changed, and, perhaps, even that the old conventional wisdom in Washington has lost its currency.