Hillary will take whatever position suits her interests at any point of time

By Don Calabrese, CFP

Hillary Clinton could save us all a lot of time by simply issuing the following statement:

You’re wasting your time asking me my position on anything. I have no idea. Regardless of what I’ve ever said or done in the past, or what I may say today, what I may actually do in the future depends entirely on how I perceive my own self-interest at that moment. And since I have no idea what the situation might be if and when I have to take an action on anything, I have no idea what I might do. So, in answer to your question: I don’t know. And stop asking me.

That would be an honest answer, and it would apply to absolutely any issue. Witness her kinda-sorta-but-we’ll-see reversal on the Obama trade bill – the very same trade bill she supported as Secretary of State when doing so seemed to present no barriers to her presidential ambitions:

After speaking at length about the uncertainty of what’s in the deal and trade in general, Clinton was pressed for a yes-or-no answer on whether she’d vote for the package going through Congress.

“At this point, probably not,” she said.

Clinton indicated last weekend she was leaning against the plan, urging Obama to work more with “allies” in Congress including House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who helped scuttle a major vote last week. Clinton urged all sides to get the “strongest deal possible,” and said there should be no deal absent that.

But Thursday’s interview was the first time she said whether she’d support or oppose the plan on the table.

The position came with some caveats—noting that the trade agenda includes several distinct elements.

After the push nearly derailed last week amid Democratic resistance, the House on Thursday approved the centerpiece measure known as Trade Promotion Authority, a bill giving the president “fast-track” authority to push trade deals through Congress. He wants this in order to ink a massive trade pact with Pacific nations known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Clinton, as secretary of state, had advocated for this deal—repeatedly.

If you’ve ever wondered why she gets away with this sort of thing – repeatedly – keep in mind something we’ve discussed before. The political press has known for a long time that Hillary is dishonest and self-serving. They only see that as a problem for a politician if these bad character traits become a negative for his or her political brand. What the political press respects is political acumen – not honesty and certainly not policy chops. If Hillary can be all these horrendous things and still maintain her political viability, they not only give her a pass for it, they’re actually kind of impressed.

And they decided long ago that Hillary’s dishonesty was not really a story because it didn’t seem to be hurting her political brand. Even the e-mail, Beghazi and Clinton Foundation lies have only been covered in the context of whether she’s maintaining her political viability in the face of the scandals.

So when Hillary blatantly changes her position on an issue for no reason other than political expediency, she will receive no media blowback for doing so. It’s the sort of thing she does and has always done, and they marvel at her ability to pull it off.

Of course, this is circular logic. She only pulls it off because she’s got them convinced it’s not noteworthy. They would continue to see it that way until the day they actually help her become president, at which point her ineptitude and dishonesty actually start causing real problems, and can’t be measured solely in terms of how shrewdly she manages them politically.

But that’s governing. The political press doesn’t know anything about that. Then again, neither does Hillary, so it’s no wonder they get along so well.