I don't think a) this piece was well written, since it doesn't tell us which statements of Secy Clinton were considered objectionable, or b) the reference could have been to her concession speech, which most commentators, left and right, considered one of her best and could not reasonably be considered ideological. 

I consider it problematic whenever someone writes a piece that doesn't clarify its terms so readers can understand their meaning. I appreciate Fr. Reese's effort at reporting but, like several NCR contributors, he seems not to run his pieces by a good editor.