In an interview in Des Moines today Hillary Clinton said that she would be upfront with all of her decisions and opinions on policy issues prior to being elected.
"I think it's important for people to know what I would do, because it's easy to just stand up and say, 'Hey, vote for me and I'll tell you later what I'll do.' But that's not the best way for a democracy to work," she said.
However, on July 28 in New Hampshire, Clinton dodged a question about the Keystone XL pipeline, putting off giving an answer until after she "becomes(s) president."
"If it's undecided when I become president, I will answer your question," Clinton said.
Media was outraged over Clinton's answer. The Washington Post wrote,
Imagine if Jeb Bush, when asked about the immigration problem in the country, said only: "Look, it's a complex issue. I am not going to say anything about it until I am in the White House." There would be massive outrage -- and rightly so. Bush would be accused of obfuscating for purely political reasons. Which, of course, would be what he was doing.
And, of course, that is what Clinton is doing on Keystone. She knows that no matter what position she takes, she will make a big part of the Democratic party unhappy. Organized labor wants the deal because of the jobs it will create; environmental groups oppose the deal which they argue would do massive damage. It's the same damned if you do, damned if you don't problem that has led the Obama Administration to take such a long time to issue a final ruling on the pipeline. But just because it's politically disadvantageous to take a position doesn't mean Clinton should be allowed to avoid doing just that.
This is pure politics by Clinton. It's a gamble based on the idea that the disgust over her failure to answer a direct question will be far less damaging than the fallout if she did offer her opinion. She might well be right, politically speaking. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.