海角大神

When thinking about the implications of Hillary Clinton鈥檚 big economic speech on Monday, there鈥檚 one line that keeps popping into our head. We think it鈥檚 a handy way to explain how she鈥檚 going to position herself on economic issues as she plunges headlong into Campaign 2016.

It came right at the top of the address, when she was still warming to her theme. She鈥檇 just said that the measure of US success should be rising incomes for families, not just for CEOs. Then she added this: The measure of economic success also shouldn鈥檛 be 鈥渏ust some arbitrary growth targets untethered to people鈥檚 lives and livelihoods."

鈥淎rbitrary growth targets鈥�? Yeah, that鈥檚 not exactly high-flown language or an obvious intellectual reference. But our reaction was immediate: That鈥檚 a not-so-subtle dig at Jeb Bush.

Mr. Bush鈥檚 big economic talking point is that, under his presidency, the US gross domestic product should grow 4 percent each year. Now that鈥檚 a really ambitious target, and he鈥檚 taken some guff for adding that Americans might need to work more hours to reach that. (He meant part-time workers should be able to get full-time jobs if they want.) But it鈥檚 a clear, big-think position. It can stick in your mind, like Herman Cain鈥檚 famous 9-9-9 economic plan from 2012. It could be an effective symbol for the Bush campaign.

Mrs. Clinton in her speech said in essence that the 4 percent thing may sound good, but it鈥檚 not connected to people鈥檚 lives. She wants to be the defender of the middle class, and portray Bush as the defender of abstract numbers.

There鈥檚 a flip side to the phrase, too. It could also be a way to connect with Bernie Sanders鈥檚 voters.

Senator Sanders is the self-declared socialist running to Clinton鈥檚 left. He鈥檚 not a huge fan of economic growth for growth鈥檚 sake. Most of it just goes to the top 1 percent, in his view. That makes him a political and economic outlier, at The Washington Post "Wonkblog."

鈥淪anders鈥檚 position inverts decades of orthodoxy among liberal and conservative candidates alike, by prizing redistribution above all else,鈥� Mr. Tankersley writes.

Clinton doesn鈥檛 support that position. She is for growth: She mentioned the word 29 times in her speech.

But she鈥檚 for 鈥渇air growth." She鈥檚 against 鈥渁rbitrary growth." In that sense, she鈥檚 at least nodding in Sanders鈥檚 direction.

So there you have Clinton鈥檚 approach: try to tar Bush as a friend of corporate interests, uninterested in families鈥� problems; and don鈥檛 lose Sanders's voters, if possible.