It’s not clear how long Clinton can keep up the silent treatment. Clinton skirts fight on surveillance

Last September, Hillary Clinton strode to a podium in Philadelphia to deliver what she advance-billed as a policy speech addressing the roiling controversy over government surveillance in a digital era.

“We are once again in the middle of some big, noisy debates. What are the demands of America’s global leadership in a changing world?” Clinton asked. “How do we provide both security and liberty at home and abroad? Every era faces its own questions and has to fashion its own answers, and we are no different.”


She spoke for 11 more minutes that night — but never actually provided any concrete answers as to how the balance between security and privacy should be struck.

And she hasn’t since.

( PHOTOS: Who’s talking about Hillary Clinton 2016?)

Clinton aides indicated at the time that she largely abandoned her planned speech at the National Constitution Center because President Barack Obama decided to address the nation that same night about his decision to seek congressional approval to use force in Syria. Indeed, she mentioned Obama’s imminent White House address and called for a “strong response” to the Syrian crisis.

While Clinton’s decision to put aside her original speech that night was understandable, her near silence on the issue since has been more open to question. As the national debate over the National Security Agency’s broad array of data collection programs has rolled on, courts, lawmakers, blue-ribbon panels and even Obama himself have weighed on the legality, effectiveness and wisdom of the snooping . Clinton has not.

But it’s not clear how long she can keep up the silent treatment: As she mulls a bid for the White House in 2016, she’s beginning to face pressure to outline her views on the surveillance issue more clearly.

( PHOTOS: Stars line up for Hillary Clinton 2016)

Other potential 2016 contenders — ranging from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.) — have weighed in. Paul, who has taken a staunchly libertarian stand against the NSA programs, f iled a class-action lawsuit over the surveillance last week. By contrast, Christie and O’Malley have warned about the dangers of retreating in the battle against terrorism.

Completely sidestepping such questions would seem odd — and probably unsustainable — if Clinton wants to remain close to the national political debate.

And while the surveillance issue has yet to become a real political barn burner, Clinton is eager to court two audiences highly focused on the matter: Internet-savvy liberal activists and wealthy tech industry donors.

In the 2008 race, the Democratic Party’s so-called netroots were wary of Clinton and largely gravitated toward Obama and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). Clinton’s potential 2016 campaign will need an army of enthusiastic, Web-oriented organizers — just the kind of people who seem most up in arms about the revelations from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

( Also on POLITICO: Dems' new 2014 plan: Neutralize Obamacare)

“People who care about surveillance and wiretapping care about it deeply,” said Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia lawyer and chairman of the board of Netroots Nation. “They see it as a fundamental issue of the government’s power over individuals.”

Asked whether a 2016 candidate could satisfy surveillance critics by echoing the kinds of reforms Obama laid out in a speech last month, Bonin said, “I don’t think that would satisfy them. … Many people saw that as too little too late.”

The other key audience, tech industry executives, has also been disappointed in Obama’s response and eager to embrace politicians promising more aggressive reforms. U.S.-based Internet and computer firms say global fears of NSA surveillance are hurting their bottom line and prompting foreign governments to propose responses that could splinter the Internet — hobbling one of America’s most successful industries.

“It has a serious impact,” said Donnie Fowler, an adviser to technology firms a former vice president of TechNet. “When you’re talking to Google or you’re talking to Intel, to have western Europe stand up and say, ‘We don’t trust you’ — that’s real money. Yes, they care about this issue. It’s not just a philosophical issue. It’s a real bottom-line issue.”

( Also on POLITICO: Chelsea Clinton: Gay marriage not the end)

Fowler agreed that if Clinton simply adopted Obama’s announced reforms, many in Silicon Valley would be disappointed. But he said their business-related concerns cover a broad range of areas such as patent law, net neutrality and repatriation of profits, so falling short on the surveillance issue wouldn’t be a deal-breaker.

“People are not very happy about this hurting business, but it’s not the only issue they’ll care about next year or in 2016,” he said. “If a candidate takes a position industry doesn’t want or a candidate takes Obama’s position, [donors] might have a separate comment about the economic damage to the industry or damage to the free flow of information and they’ll wince, but then they’ll take their next bite of chicken or drink of iced tea,” he said.

In theory, Clinton’s low profile on the issue could give an opening to a liberal candidate looking to challenge her from the left. Whether such a candidate will emerge or be viable is far from clear, but it seems doubtful that the surveillance issue alone would be sufficient to fuel such a challenge.

Clinton’s decision not to give the surveillance speech last September may have also signaled a change in strategy for her and her camp. The Philadelphia talk was actually supposed to be the second in a series of addresses on significant policy issues. She delivered one, on voting rights, at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco last August. Clinton said at that speech that she planned a third address later in the fall on “American’s global leadership and our moral standing around the world.” That one, too, has never taken place.

Sources close to Clinton said her advisers ultimately concluded that delivering detailed speeches, particularly on a fast-moving issue like the surveillance debate, was not a good idea. New revelations about U.S. practices seem to emerge every week. And there is still no consensus among Democratic lawmakers about how to respond to the issue.

Any concrete changes she were to propose in the surveillance arena would immediately put her at odds with some in her party on Capitol Hill, where Democratic Clinton friends like Sens Dianne Feinstein of California and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont have radically different ideas about what reforms are needed to the government’s so-called “bulk collection” programs.

In addition, the subject raises awkward questions about what Clinton knew during her four years as the administration’s top diplomat — both about domestic surveillance and about snooping on heads of state with whom she negotiated.

Fowler also said he thought it was a bad idea for Hillary Clinton to try to tackle the surveillance issue in a major address.

Follow @politico

“There’s no ‘right’ answer to this. … Don’t give a speech when there’s no ‘right’ answer,” he said. “Hillary can get in a mess on this if she tries to game it out. Say what you think and admit it’s a very hard issue.”

While the contours of the surveillance issue may change substantially in the next year or so, there’s almost no chance it will go away. Congress is splintered on what, if any, reforms should be made.

However, if lawmakers don’t act by June 2015, the PATRIOT Act’s legal authority for the phone metadata program and other still-classified programs will expire. That all but guarantees a robust debate on the issue just as the 2016 presidential campaign is gearing up.

What Clinton intended to say last September remains something of a mystery, but she hinted a few weeks before that she would call for greater transparency and “balance” in the NSA’s work. Spokesmen for Clinton had no comment in response to queries about her views, but people close to her said she’s concerned about the impact burgeoning surveillance programs have had on privacy and is well aware of the dangers of government overreach.

“She’s a child of Watergate,” said one Clinton adviser, who asked not to be named. “She’s for tough action on national security, but she doesn’t instinctively go for keeping it quiet. She tends to believe a lack of transparency is used to cover up mistakes.”

While Clinton has essentially been silent on the substance of the surveillance debate, during an appearance in Los Angeles last June, she indicated she is no fan of the man who triggered the discussion. Clinton faulted leaker Edward Snowden for “outrageous behavior” and blasted China for refusing to turn Snowden over to the U.S. while he was holed up in Hong Kong, The Associated Press reported.

And during a visit to London in October, she called for “a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done [about surveillance], and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens’ understanding as there can be.”

“People need to be better informed, but I think it would be going down a wrong path if we were to somehow reject the importance of both the debate and the kinds of intelligence activities that genuinely keep us safer,” she added.

Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, has been a bit more detailed about his views.

“We have to use Big Data. We have to protect privacy,” he told CNN last September, adding that he’d talked to a friend in the tech business who said some type of government data-mining is necessary. “I would encourage more disclosure on the procedures, not the details, but the procedures. I think it would be a good thing for the American people to have a debate on this.”

Hillary Clinton’s relative quiet on surveillance both as secretary of state and afterward has left some observers scouring her earlier record for clues to her views.

During the 2008 presidential race, Obama and Clinton were basically in lockstep railing against President George W. Bush’s surveillance efforts. Then, just after Obama clinched the nomination in June 2008, he abruptly shifted to the political center.

Obama and Clinton had both vowed publicly to oppose any surveillance legislation giving retroactive immunity to telecom providers who aided Bush administration snooping programs. Obama said he’d filibuster such a measure.

But with the nomination effectively in hand, he reversed course.

Obama said changes to the bill met his “basic concerns.”

“Given that all the information I received is the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security as long as it has these constraints on them, I thought it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise,” he added.

Obama’s move — like his 2007 statement about bombing Pakistan in order to kill bin Laden — was dismissed by many as political maneuvering.

“I remember being kind of surprised and shocked,” said a former Senate aide close to the debate. “We all assumed he had just decided now that he had the nomination to try to burnish his national security credentials.”

In retrospect, however, it’s possible Obama was signaling that he wasn’t as dubious about government surveillance as some thought.

“That does seem like kind of a precursor to what he’s been saying about Snowden,” the aide said.

Clinton — still reeling from her loss in the primary — stood her ground and insisted that the new legislation didn’t do enough to protect privacy. On July 9, 2008, she voted to back a filibuster of the bill, while Obama voted to end debate on the issue.

“While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration’s surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable,” Clinton said in a statement. “I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.”

Now that kind of distance from Obama may be just what Clinton needs to recapture if she decides to make another bid for the White House.

“Hillary, to her credit, never wavered on these questions in the Senate, even during that time when she was acting like she was the more robust national security type in the race,” the Senate staffer said. “Certainly, it wouldn’t surprise me if when she’s in the Oval Office she would have a different view, but it is a hopeful sign.”

Maggie Haberman contributed to this report.