Subject: Martin O’Malley is getting bolder and bolder. That’s a problem for Hillary. - The Washington Post
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Alexander S. Mackler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:25:53 -0400

Martin O’Malley is getting bolder and bolder. That’s a problem for Hillary.
- The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/22/martin-omalley-is-getting-bolder-and-bolder-thats-a-problem-for-hillary/

Martin O’Malley is getting bolder and bolder. That’s a problem for Hillary.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley probably can't win the Democratic
presidential nomination in 2016. But he can make things very uncomfortable
for Hillary Clinton. Of late, he seems very committed to doing just that.

The latest gambit by O'Malley came Wednesday when he sent an email to
supporters pledging his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. "To
me, opposing bad trade deals like TPP is just common sense," O'Malley
wrote. "American workers whose jobs could be on the line right now are owed
more than lip service. They deserve to know where leaders stand."

Whatever "leaders" could he be talking about?

Maybe Clinton, perhaps, who in New Hampshire this week has avoided taking
an outright position on TPP
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-trade-deal-conditions-trans-pacific-partnership-117189.html#ixzz3Y3ruruo1>.
“Any
trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and
protect our security," Clinton said in a statement that is simultaneously
true and meaningless.

O'Malley crafted an unapologetically liberal record during his time as
Maryland's governor and without Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the
race seems likely to be Clinton's liberal conscience in the contest. While
Clinton's team is doing everything in its power to cast her as a longtime
populist fighting Wall Street on behalf of the little guy, that's going to
be a very tough sell
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/21/we-cant-figure-out-why-hillary-clinton-cant-figure-out-why-people-dont-see-her-as-a-populist/>
.

Take trade, for example. As Republicans gleefully point out, Clinton called
the TPP the "gold standard" of trade agreements
<http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm>
during her time at the State Department. And, Hillary Clinton is still
dealing with some level of distrust about labor organizations due to her
husband's 1994 signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Then
Senator Obama attacked Clinton for her support of NAFTA during the 2008
Ohio primary and fact-checkers dinged her for not acknowledging that she
had shifted her position on the trade agreement
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/>.
(It's worth remembering that John Edwards was the organized labor candidate
of that 2008 race.)

[*Why almost everyone hates TPP*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/why-almost-everyone-hates-the-trade-deal-obamas-negotiating-in-japan/>
.]

O'Malley hitting Clinton as not liberal enough -- whether it's on trade or
anything else  -- isn't great but it alsowon't cause her to lose the
nomination. What could be a more fruitful (if you are O'Malley) or damaging
(if you are Clinton) approach is to cast her unwillingness to take a firm
stand on an issue like TPP as indicative of a politician who lacks any core
beliefs and simply does what is politically expedient at all times.

O'Malley's rhetoric -- and that of a top aide of his who said there was "no
hedging" in his position on TPP
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-trade-2016/>
-- seems to be headed in that direction these days. And, we know from the
2008 campaign just how problematic being painted as overly political in all
things can be for Clinton.  Remember this
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXPs725HeGE>?

That moment -- at the end of an otherwise stellar debate for Clinton -- was
the beginning of her long slide and defeat.  Why? Because it crystallized
for many people exactly that they didn't like or trust about her. She
looked too political by (at least) half.

For Clinton then, the true danger of O'Malley's increasing outspokenness on
issues is not that he will paint her as not liberal enough. Most polling
suggests that the bulk of liberals like her and will vote for her. Instead
an emboldened O'Malley could remind voters of the calculating political
side of Clinton that many of them do not like.  It's O'Malley's boldness
that's the real threat to Clinton, not his liberal positions.

Eric D. Schwerin
[email-masked]

Sent from my iPhon