Hillary Clinton’s shaky first few days
By Dave Andrusko
For the moment, the field of potential presidential competitors has
pre-cleared itself, leaving pro-abortion Hillary Clinton to take up all
the media oxygen on the Democratic side. Since it’ll be a while before
the Republican roster of contenders shakes itself out, Clinton is the
beneficiary of endless amounts of attention.
If the past is prologue, that will mean two things for sure. Her laundry list of weaknesses will be exposed and (even if that were not the case) political reporters will insist somebody on the Democratic side contest what would otherwise be the uncontested coronation of the former senator from New York and Secretary of State.
I found Josh Kraushaar’s critique in the National Journal of what Clinton has done thus far to be particularly shrewd. His thesis is captured in the lengthy headline and subhead:
“Hillary Clinton Is Learning All the Wrong Lessons From Obama: she’s relying on the president’s advisers and old campaign strategy to win her the presidency. But what Clinton really needs is a fresh message and the fight of an underdog.”
In a nutshell, Kraushaar captures what is the combination of factors that explains the supposed inevitability of Mrs. Clinton: an incredible amount of money, an unparalleled rolodex, “and a super-infrastructure combining the best of Obama’s and Clinton’s advisers.”
His counter begins with a truism: that she simply can’t be Obama II. Although he doesn’t put it this way (I do), Clinton can’t get away with Obama’s approach, either as a candidate and surely not (if she was elected) as president:
But, of course, Mrs. Clinton was/is as painfully maladroit at this as her husband was/is joyfully adroit.
The irony of Kraushaar’s piece is that this (and other pieces of advice) fit her about as well as Cinderella’s slipper fit her sister’s feet. So, in the end, he concludes Clinton could win not “because of her political skill, but because of the Democratic machine”–and because (theoretically) the prospect of electing the first female President will nudge over women who otherwise would never vote for Clinton.
Well, we will see. It is silly to make much of the first few post-announcement days, but it is hard to ignore that when she went into a restaurant in Ohio, no one recognized her and she spoke to no one. Or that in first “visit” to Iowa, there were more reporters than voters.
Clinton may inevitably be the Democratic nominee for president. But by November 2016, her storehouse of flaws, including her extremist position on abortion which is far outside the mainstream, will be known far and wide.
Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton
If the past is prologue, that will mean two things for sure. Her laundry list of weaknesses will be exposed and (even if that were not the case) political reporters will insist somebody on the Democratic side contest what would otherwise be the uncontested coronation of the former senator from New York and Secretary of State.
I found Josh Kraushaar’s critique in the National Journal of what Clinton has done thus far to be particularly shrewd. His thesis is captured in the lengthy headline and subhead:
“Hillary Clinton Is Learning All the Wrong Lessons From Obama: she’s relying on the president’s advisers and old campaign strategy to win her the presidency. But what Clinton really needs is a fresh message and the fight of an underdog.”
In a nutshell, Kraushaar captures what is the combination of factors that explains the supposed inevitability of Mrs. Clinton: an incredible amount of money, an unparalleled rolodex, “and a super-infrastructure combining the best of Obama’s and Clinton’s advisers.”
His counter begins with a truism: that she simply can’t be Obama II. Although he doesn’t put it this way (I do), Clinton can’t get away with Obama’s approach, either as a candidate and surely not (if she was elected) as president:
For all his political strengths,
Obama has been a remarkably stage-managed president. He’s avoided the
mainstream news media like the plague, opting instead for friendly
columnists, like-minded outlets such as Vox, or entertainment shows for
interviews to get his message out. For much of his presidency, he’s been
operating in an echo chamber—one that’s served his political interest
of appealing to the progressive base.
So, what to do? Get out there and “press the flesh.” Why? Clinton
needs to show that she can connect with voters, and isn’t cloistered in a bubble of entitlement.
The irony of Kraushaar’s piece is that this (and other pieces of advice) fit her about as well as Cinderella’s slipper fit her sister’s feet. So, in the end, he concludes Clinton could win not “because of her political skill, but because of the Democratic machine”–and because (theoretically) the prospect of electing the first female President will nudge over women who otherwise would never vote for Clinton.
Well, we will see. It is silly to make much of the first few post-announcement days, but it is hard to ignore that when she went into a restaurant in Ohio, no one recognized her and she spoke to no one. Or that in first “visit” to Iowa, there were more reporters than voters.
Clinton may inevitably be the Democratic nominee for president. But by November 2016, her storehouse of flaws, including her extremist position on abortion which is far outside the mainstream, will be known far and wide.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment