Chotiner looks at her overall challenges:
Hillary Clinton can’t reinvent herself as an Elizabeth Warren–type populist, and I doubt she will be running against big banks. But she can still run on “change,” channeling a streak of populism and appealing to a disgruntled left-wing of the Democratic Party. Much of the appeal to one’s base is about attitude. Howard Dean’s popularity among the netroots could coexist with his relatively moderate record as governor because he seemed angry. The point isn’t that Clinton is angry; rather, it is that you can appeal to different groups with non-policy related appeals. …
Will Clinton’s new rhetoric succeed? It’s probably smart of her to embark on it relatively early in the campaign, and there is reason to think it will be more effective than it would have been had she tried a similar strategy in 2008. She isn’t currently in government, for starters, and she has four years as Secretary of State behind her. This is the one cabinet job that seems to distance you from petty politics, and may go some way to making her seem like a figure who can rise above the fray.
Good luck with that. With today’s GOP, her ascendance is, alas, likely to drive them almost insane. The trouble for Clinton is that she really has never shown much chops as an actual politician. Her loss to Obama – when she was thirty points ahead for a long time – reveals her lack of instinct for the game. She’s not a good speaker; she’s not that great at schmoozing; and she can be easily rattled. Then there’s the fact that she doesn’t change much. The same clique that surrounded her in the White House still hover around. Exhibit A: this great Ben Smith piece explaining why the Clintons still drive the press and many of their closest friends crazy.
(Photo by Getty)
The Dish 