A.B. Stoddard: ‘Better politics’ for 2016

Even if Hillary Clinton had watched President Obama’s sixth State of the Union address with the sound off Tuesday night, she would still know all she needs to know: Sen. Elizabeth Warren was on her feet repeatedly, applauding vigorously.

It was, after all, a speech written not for Republicans who control Congress or to lay the groundwork for any bipartisan accomplishment in his last two years in office. It was instead an uncompromising speech to Democrats, not for now but for years to come. 

{mosads}Obama used the past tense often, to take credit for new economic growth, healthcare coverage for the previously uninsured and lower gas prices. But while attempting to cement a legacy, he also pushed policies he hasn’t passed and won’t, and lamented an economic burden saddled by the middle class that isn’t likely to be alleviated by the time he leaves office in 2017. 

If it sounded like a campaign platform, unrelated to legislative reality, that’s because it was. The contrasts were intentional: Democrats whooping and clapping for equal pay for women, subsidized child care and a minimum wage increase, while Republicans sat, grumpily glued to their chairs. 

Obama loves a foil, and despite his pitch to abandon the “tired old patterns” of politics, he embraced his favorite one: lecturing the other party about cooperation while pitching ambitious plans its members would never touch. He offered only a small crumb for common ground — trade promotion authority, which faces strong opposition in both parties. Obama referred to the effectiveness of “middle-class economics” but the plans he laid out were a wish list for a future with Democrats in control of the White House and at least the Senate, not an agenda for the 114th Congress. He concluded, of course, by saying that working together is “better politics.”

Warren (D-Mass.) was enthusiastic, as she clearly agrees there is work to be done to “restore the link between hard work and growing opportunity for every American.” Indeed, the good economic news Obama touted has failed to lift far too many middle-class workers. Since Obama was elected, rates for middle-class pension ownership, home ownership and stock ownership have all fallen by double digits.

From her undisclosed location, Clinton tweeted that Obama had “pointed” to an economy that works for all, but she added “Now we need to step up & deliver for the middle class.” Clinton allies report the candidate-in-waiting is crafting a sharper economic message than she ran on in 2008, when Obama defeated her, and she has employed key Obama aides for her presidential bid. But should the plight of the middle class dominate the presidential election debate for 2016, which both parties promise it will, Clinton will have to assuage the Warren flank while trying to make sure the bulk of Wall Street cash doesn’t end up in the pocket of the GOP nominee. Even if Warren doesn’t run, the energy around her message won’t go away, as even some Tea Party conservatives agree with her opposition to “too big to fail” policies.

The challenge for Clinton, criticized for caution and calculation, is to find a response that’s believable. Warren’s attack is clear and digestible: Most of us are left out of a rigged system designed to help those at the top, she says. But Clinton won’t want to attack banks, nor will she agree with Warren’s assessment that the middle class has been damaged by government policy dating back to 1980, because that would include the presidencies of her husband as well as the man who made her secretary of State.

Clinton needs to separate from Obama’s record and from Warren’s message, even as she embraces both. In the months before she announces her run, she must decide which is the “better politics.”

Stoddard is an associate editor of The Hill.