Whether you love Hillary Clinton or…don’t, or admire Mayor Bill de Blasio or…don’t, it’s hard to understand why he hasn’t endorsed her candidacy for president (yet). He says she’s been out of the public eye for eight years, and that we haven’t been shown yet her “vision” for presidency. Aside from the obvious question of how someone who owes so much of his success to the Clintons could be so disloyal in choosing to refrain from endorsing her, are de Blasio’s recent statements accurate? Has Clinton really been out of the loop – and can we actually say we don’t know who she is as a candidate? Something’s fishy in Gotham.
Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State ended in 2013. While one could (though we won’t) argue that she’s been out of the public eye since then, her time in that post cannot be discounted as viable work on behalf of the people of this country toward a second presidential candidacy. Whether you like how she handled that role or not, she established herself as a foreign policy dynamo. Addressing the House Foreign Relations Committee close to the end of her tenure, she was tough as nails, yet took responsibility for her role in Benghazi. Terrorism is a big issue for Americans, and it will be a huge issue in next year’s election. We’re not in the business of making endorsements ourselves, but it takes a strong person to represent this country on a global scale and fight the “evildoers” we all fear. In that department, we think Clinton’s got as much, or more, of a platform than anyone.
Okay, so de Blasio must mean (even though he didn’t say), that she hasn’t run for president in almost eight years. Valid point…but what other Democrats have? He said, “We’re still beginning to hear what she stands for.” Poppycock! We heard what she stood for when she ran seven years ago. We heard what she stood for when she was elected to the U.S. Senate twice by the people of New York. We heard what she stood for when she was First Lady, and even before. We might not stand from the same position as Hillary Clinton, but in general, she makes her stance clear. “We need to see the substance,” de Blasio further pontificated. That’s not just merely unenthusiastic – it’s insulting.
Clearly, Hizzoner needed some kind of spontaneous-sounding reason (cautiousness) as to why he had already decided that he wasn’t yet endorsing his old pal and former boss. Many politicos are saying that he’s positioning himself to be a leader of the progressive Democrats, leveraging the endorsement holdout in exchange for some liberal policy additions to Clinton’s political “vision.” In politics, being cautious is rarely a bad thing. This, however, is not being cautious; it’s playing hardball to push your own agenda. That’s ok when you’re on the other side of the aisle, or when you are opponents on the same side. That is far from the case here. And this is one of those instances when being late to the game, as de Blasio is wont to do, isn’t going to be laughed off. Sure, he’ll eventually endorse Clinton, but it will be too late. He already looks like someone more interested in political posturing than in supporting a fellow champion of New York. Given de Blasio’s approval rating of late, his failure to endorse might be the best endorsement she could get.
In fact, Hillary Clinton probably doesn’t need de Blasio’s official endorsement, but, based on their history, she should at least have his unwavering support. He’s bound to show up with it in a few days – late as always.
