Hillary’s rivals pull punches

Hillary Clinton’s potential Democratic opponents in 2016 are treating the former secretary of State with kid gloves for the moment, declining to launch attacks on her or her policies, even when invited to do so.

Would-be candidates from former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) have all passed up the chance to highlight how they might differ from Clinton, if they were to enter the upcoming presidential race.

{mosads}On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, moderator Chuck Todd prodded Webb about Clinton: “You don’t want to talk about Hillary Clinton yet — is that fair to say? You’re not ready to talk about her?”

Webb, who is not normally known for his reticence, refused to bite. “I don’t think it’s for me to talk about Hillary Clinton,” he said. “I enjoyed working with her when I was in the Senate. I don’t know what she’s going to do, if she runs, what she will run on.

“I’m just very concerned about these issues for the country,” he added. 

Webb’s comments came on the heels of remarks he made last month at the National Press Club, in which he said he didn’t want to “undermine” his former Senate colleague.

Likewise, O’Malley, who some observers suspect will run with an eye on securing the vice-presidential nomination, has taken a soft approach with Clinton. Earlier this year, he told The Washington Post that he had a “great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton,” and stopped there before pivoting back to his own record. 

Outside experts say the potential candidates don’t want to jab at Clinton, until they are absolutely sure they themselves will enter the presidential race. 

The Clintons, who are unarguably the most powerful couple in politics, don’t quickly forget who is on their side and who is not. After her loss to President Obama in the 2008 primary, for example, Clinton’s aides put together a spreadsheet listing those who were supporters and those who were perceived to have betrayed her.

“They realize that attacking someone who is a clear front-runner and who doesn’t take criticism lightly will have huge costs,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

“She will strike back, the press will perceive this as the start of a primary and start to really interrogate the person doing the attacking, and Republicans will enjoy some time out of the spotlight, while Democrats squabble among themselves.”

Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist and former spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said it is still too early for potential candidates to go on offense against Clinton, particularly with the midterm elections just weeks away.

“No one is paying attention” for the moment, Manley said. 

But he added that, for any Democrat truly intent on running for president, the avoidance of criticism of Clinton is “not sustainable in the long run.”

“What use is it if they’re not going to provide a vision?” Manley asked. “At some point they’re going to have to switch it up and provide a viable alternative.”

Some potential candidates have at least given some indication of how they might emphasize their differences with Clinton. 

Vice President Biden, who has a close bond with both Clintons, took a minor swipe at the former secretary of State earlier this year, at a time when she was already facing criticism for saying she and her husband were “dead broke” at the end of Bill Clinton’s White House tenure.

Biden — always eager to stress his everyman persona — told a crowd that he didn’t “own a single stock or bond” and that he has “no savings account.”

Those close to the vice president, however, said that the comments were ones he had made before and that they should not have been interpreted as a dart aimed at Clinton.

Other candidates have offered more direct hints as to where they dissent from Clinton’s worldview.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has implied that she sees Clinton as too close to Wall Street. 

Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Mass.) has called Clinton “fantastic and incredibly strong” but has also wondered aloud if Clinton’s so-called “inevitability factor” might provoke a backlash from voters, just as it did in 2008.

Still, aides and others close to the potential candidates say there is a good and straightforward reason why they are mostly abjuring full-frontal assaults on Clinton.

“No one wants to inflict damage on someone who could very well be our party’s candidate,” said one former Webb staffer. “It’s just that simple.”