CW, a couple of things to remember. First, this is exactly the formula for ambiguity she’s been using for months, every part of it, including the part about you can make a difference without a title.
Second, the aforementioned ambiguity has tactical value if she is running, because it keeps her out from under FEC scrutiny for the maximum possible time, a financial advantage to an operation expecting to be outspent, possibly by an order of magnitude, by her true opponent.
Third, she is channeling Reagan by invoking this tea party theme of making a difference without a title. She knows her history, that the conservative movement of the 80’s came about in part because Reagan instigated many young people to become active and make a difference where they were, even if the weren’t necessarily political office holders. It was that massive influx of new support for conservative values that helped him generate more than just a short-term win. That is how great leaders think, and how they accomplish so much more than mere politicians.
So you would do well not to read too much into these deflections. They are purposely designed to provide her with legal cover until the moment of her choosing. My belief is that she is running, and this whole line of discussion is shortly going to become moot.