How Hillary Clinton would bend over backward to broker compromise in Washington

Read Hillary Clinton’s nomination speech carefully and you will discover an enormously promising — and these days radical — approach to governing the United States. Largely lost amid the cheering of most Democrats and the jeering of Bernie Sanders followers, Clinton envisioned a far less ideological and more pragmatic presidency than that of Barack Obama.

If she holds to her word — and there is no reason to doubt that she will try — Clinton will follow in the get-things-done-through-compromise footsteps of LBJ rather than the my-way-or-the-highway style of BHO.

During eight years in the U.S. Senate, Clinton earned a strong reputation among Republicans and Democrats as a hard worker and trustworthy legislative partner. Clearly, she understands that the White House needs a reset with Congress before one with Russia.

In her Thursday night remarks, Clinton deftly threaded numerous needles, most of which involved reassuring recalcitrant Sanders supporters on trade, Wall Street regulations and free public college for the working and middle class.

But, as she worked hard to hold her left flank, Clinton made clear that she sees the virtues of bipartisanship by pledging: “I will be a President for Democrats, Republicans, and independents.”

Then she sketched how a less divided house would stand: “In my first 100 days, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II. Jobs in manufacturing, clean energy, technology and innovation, small business and infrastructure.”

At that moment, Clinton put on the table an economic-stimulating, job-creating program of the kind that Obama let fall by the wayside as he rammed health-care coverage through a Democratic Congress in the second year of his administration without a single Republican vote (in fairness, after GOPers refused to work with the new president on his economic stimulus).

As a result, the GOP took increasing control of the legislative branch and spurned Obama’s every job creating plan, along with virtually all else he proposed.

To skeptics who justifiably feel burned by eight years under a supposed unifier, following eight years under another supposed unifier, both of whom let bad faith worsen partisan divisions, Clinton had a plea:

“Now I know some of you are sitting at home thinking, well that all sounds pretty good. But how are you going to get it done? How are you going to break through the gridlock in Washington?

“Look at my record. I’ve worked across the aisle to pass laws and treaties and to launch new programs that help millions of people. And if you give me the chance, that’s what I’ll do as President.”

Hers was no empty Trumpian boast. Republicans have long acknowledged about Clinton’s low-key, good-faith deal-brokering — which helped produce bipartisan legislation combating human trafficking and guaranteeing full payment of bonuses to wounded veterans, plus more.

In the Senate, she left behind good will in unexpected places.

“I would think Sen. Clinton would have a lot more respect for the institution than Obama did," said Don Nickles, an Oklahoman who was the Senate Republican whip during Clinton’s first two years in Congress and overlapped with her for four.

“I would expect she would advance liberal positions in a lot of areas, but I would also guess that she would be a person that would ultimately come back to Congress,” in contrast to Obama, who often turned to executive actions. Many share Nickles’ view. “I found her to be easy to work with, smart and willing to reach agreement on complicated issues,” said Judd Gregg, the former New Hampshire Republican senator, who added that Clinton’s “approach to governing, of seeking principled compromise” could break the logjam between the Congress and White House.

Which may explain why, in 2013, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said if Clinton rather than Obama had become President back in 2009, “we’d have fixed this fiscal mess by now.”

Clinton’s speech elaborated on the portrait of how she planned to operate in the Oval Office that a dozen aides painted for the New York Times.

They said she “would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party.”

She “would bring back the intimate style of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson, negotiating over adult beverages. Picture a steady stream of senators, congressmen and other leaders raising a glass and talking policy in the Oval Office with her and her likely chief of staff.” Wouldn’t that be nice? Donald Trump poses as a dealmaker, but the only deals he’s ever brokered have been in real estate and branding, where he has split the difference between two numbers or schemed to get the better of someone.

During the campaign, he has proven that he views opponents as enemies to be humiliated, if not destroyed. Good luck with that in Washington.

Bringing together two sides with different worldviews and parochial interests — and convincing liberals and conservatives alike to settle for half-loafs — takes another approach entirely.

Clinton is telling America that she would put ideology second and progress first. Wisely, she recognizes that both parties have played a zerosum game that has, in fact, delivered zero. She’s thinking big and she’s thinking right.