But that's not good for the country. It stifles debate and encourages the politics of personality at the expense of substance.
The Democratic activists who encourage this silence are harming their own interests. How can the Democratic Party continue to hold itself out as "the party of ideas" if it doesn't even know what its presumptive candidate's ideas are?
Other party activists have argued that the presidency is overemphasized in politics, and that it's premature to focus on 2016. While there is some merit to this position, in this case I disagree. The Clintons cast a long shadow, and the assumptions now in place about what Hillary will do in 2016 are dominating -- and at times, stifling -- the political discourse today.
Silent Running
While Hillary remains silent, some supporters say it's unfair or even sexist to assume she shares her husband's views. And yet, many of the same people will also argue that she was an integral part of the Clinton administration (which is my belief as well), and that this is one of her greatest qualifications for the presidency.
You can't have it both ways. If Hillary and Bill were really a team -- and if he's not speaking for her when he attacks populism -- then it's up to her to say so.
Hillary Clinton may be able to dominate the political stage for some time, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, without stating her positions on these and other critical issues. But it's not good for democracy -- or the Democrats.
The silence could hurt her, too. As long as she says nothing, people will look to the words of her husband and partner. That could lead to unflattering interpretations of other events from her past -- like the campaign cash senatorial candidate Hillary Clinton received from the financial industry, the bank-friendly bankruptcy bill that she voted for, and the large amounts of money she's received for speaking at Wall Street.
Populism Rising
The Campaign for America's Future is hosting a conference May 22 on the New Populism. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont will be there. He's already indicated an interest in running for president, and he's strongly committed to the populist agenda. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the new populist hero whom many people hope will also run, will be there, too.
As the PopulistMajority.org polling website shows, populist policies and messages are very popular with the American people. Individual Democrats have taken up the populist line with great effect in city elections. Populism could be the key to a Democratic resurgence -- but not if the party keeps itself in a holding pattern, waiting for a candidate who won't make her position known, but whose closest and most powerful spokesperson is mounting an all-out campaignagainst populism.
If Hillary Clinton intends to play an ongoing part in national politics, whether as a presidential candidate or in another role, she should tell us where she stands on these issues. If she's retiring from political life, she should say so and let other leaders step up. Either way, it's time for the debate to begin.
What does Hillary Clinton believe? The public deserves to know. It might even be in her best interests to tell them.
END NOTES:
[1] Re-reading my coverage of the "Summit" from two years ago it struck me: Wow, I was pretty ticked off about it that year. But then, the monotony hadn't set in yet.
[2] About those "complaisant moderators" at the Fiscal Summit: Is it any wonder when journalists like Lori Montgomery, who are presumably treated quite well for moderating an event in which reality is not permitted to intrude, then go back to their desks and issue frustratingly misleading reports about government deficits or entitlement programs? See these 39 links from the Center for Economic and Policy Research for more.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
