Bill Clinton and Hillary’s advisers are suggesting she fight the last campaign; but attacking early–or now–is the wrong move and will have telling consequences; not the least is the appearance that Hillary seeks to win at any cost, no matter the hubris of waste and destruction her campaign unleashes.
The better model in front of her, right after her time at State, is the one used by Iran’s foreign minister in responding to the 47 (Republican senators). Gently show interest, take Senator Sanders platform seriously and engage the Senator on how it can be achieved–simply fold his position into her own, acknowledging she hears the voices he has awakened and respects their energy. Display a fearless and magnanimous unity, even as she tells what she can uniquely add to his programs while keeping him busy explaining how these programs are going to be paid for.
Manning the barricades with traditional attacks of votes and imagined consequences paints her as too shrill, too needy, too greedy, grinning in desperation. The season’s lesson is every action is a double down as either a benefit or a blow back. Trump is the season’s negative leader, his double downs gathers the naysayers comfortable with his lack of consequences; his opponents attempts have been blowbacks.
If Hillary broadens her vision and acts inclusively she can demonstrate true leadership. Agree with Bernie. Then out work and out think him. But she must avoid the trap of critical attacks that seem petty and small.
Clinton Campaign Underestimated Sanders Strengths, Allies Say – The New York Times http://nyti.ms/1JSf3pC (Click though to read all (9) replies. /wr)
~~The attack on Bernie voiced by Hillary and Chelsea that he wants to destroy the ACA, the CHIP program, etc., is one of the silliest and most disingenuous I’ve seen.
~~So many shifting strategies: raising mega-millions from Wall Street, lining up the establishment endorsements, limiting the debates, trying to “appear more human”, playing the woman card, arguing her “electability”, disingenuously attacking programs she once stood for.
How to get elected seems to be her prime concern.
She fails to convince me WHY she would best represent me or the people I know. I see how she has represented fracking and Monsanto and Wall Street. I see how she gave up on single-payer health care. I see how she does not in any way resemble a regular person, and that she has made millions over and over from speaking to Wall Street banks. It is clear who her constituents are: the elite, the wealthy, the establishment.
It seems almost humorous to put so much effort into a comment on all the little tricks she could pull to get elected. The real question is why?