The Clintons really don’t get it: False attacks and failed strategies as Hillary repeats 2008

[marmar]

from Salon:



The Clintons really don’t get it: False attacks and failed strategies as Hillary repeats 2008
They're distorting Sanders' plans and ham-handedly using Obama and race. It's a dangerous game and a losing plan

Bill Curry


The 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary was the most significant in the 64-year history of that venerable institution, surpassing even the mythic 1968 battle by which Gene McCarthy drove Lyndon Johnson from office. McCarthy didn’t win the nomination but he did forge a consensus to end what was, until Iraq, our most tragic foreign war. Whether or not Bernie Sanders is nominated, he too is forging a new consensus. The old order is dying; a new one’s being born.

If you get your news from cable TV you don’t know any of this. Whatever their age or gender, cable reporters still cover politics like cigar-chomping old men poring over racing forms. History was made under their noses and they still spent the night talking win, place or show, obsessed by the order of finish in the crowded middle of a lame Republican pack. It was a coming out party for a political revolution, but Gil Scott Heron had it right: the revolution will not be televised.

Sanders made history even by the metrics of horse-race journalism. He had the most votes (155,578), biggest vote share (60.4%) and biggest margin in a contested race (22.4%) of any candidate of either party in New Hampshire primary history. As in Iowa, he outperformed late polls by more than their alleged margins of error. Sanders won 55% of women, a stunning 84% of voters under 30, and 92% of those who say the trait they prize most in a politician is honesty.

Clintonites said Sanders had home-court advantage. (If you buy that excuse, just ask a friend to name a senator from a neighboring state.) Hillary may be the world’s best-known politician after Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and her husband. It gives her an overwhelming headstart in every state but Vermont, which is why she began New Hampshire thirty points up. They made other lame justifications for their loss, but after the flood there was nothing left to spin.

How Clinton lost is as telling as the historic margin she lost by. Just as in 2008, she presented as a hawk to a party bone-weary of war. Now as then, her high-dollar, tone-deaf, leak-prone campaign telegraphed every punch. Her backers harp on her experience — but experience only counts if you learn from it. Eight years later, Clinton makes the exact same mistakes. Still, party elites have bet the farm she’ll have it all sorted out by October. Dangerous wager. ................(more)

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/the_clintons_will_really_try_anything_false_attacks_and_failed_strategies_as_hillary_repeats_2008/

[antigop]

1. "experience only counts if you learn from it." nt

[casperthegm]

6. Hit the nail on the head

Clinton touts her foreign policy experience, as if she has an advantage over Sanders on this topic. The Iraq vote. Yeah, I know Clinton is tired of it, but if she wants to continue to tout her foreign policy experience then she can expect to have to answer for this. And as others have pointed out, Bernie was right, it destabilized the region. Now we have ISIS. And on top of that, Clinton wants to implement a no-fly zone in Syria. And when Russian jets cross that no-fly zone, what then?

[EndElectoral]

18. Her foreign policy decisions have been disastrous beyond the Iraq vote fiasco

1. Look up Honduras and Clinton's policy
2. Her egregious policy of teaching immigrant children a lesson by deporting them back to civil strife areas.
3. The Libya regime change mess
4. Her staunch fight to not negotiate with Iran over the nuclear deal
5. Her staunch defense of Nut-in-yah-who over atrocities in Gaza despite world condemnation
6. Her failure to attempt to help address the Palestinian issue.
7. The acceptance of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation (40M from the Saudi Arabia)
8. The email misstep in terms of "now" classified information revealed.

And many more. here's an article from Salon on Clinton's foreign policy and they've omitted a lot of things


SATURDAY, JAN 23, 2016 09:00 AM EST
Hillary has nothing to brag about: Her foreign policy record is a disaster
She may have a wealth of experience on the international stage, but her judgment has proven wanting time and again
by ADAM JOHNSON, ALTERNET

The entire notion of “foreign policy” experience is based more on vague impression than reality. What matters above all, as Obama rightly insisted in 2008, is judgment not “experience”. In the case of Clinton there hasn’t been a major foreign policy decision in the Middle East she pushed for that didn’t end up being a disaster both at home and the countries she advocated meddling in. The most commonly cited “mistake” was her support for the Iraq war which is one of the main reasons she lost the nomination the first time around. But even if one excludes this. Even if one puts it into a memory hole and buries it along with her support for DOMA, welfare reform, and harsh prison sentences, the choices she’s made after 2008 show she not only didn’t learn any lessons from that war but has only grown more bellicose and hawkish. From her advocating regime change in Libya, to arming dubious opposition forces in Syria, to undermining peace with Iran — Clinton has consistently been wrong on foreign policy even after her supposedly humbling loss of 2008.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/23/there_is_no_foreign_policy_d_league_hillarys_foreign_policy_disastrous_experience_partner/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. The only experience Hillary has is turning everything she touches into a mess!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Red Oak]

15. Ouch!

[Geronimoe]

16. Not so experienced

Hillary doesn't have any where near as much executive experience as a Governor.

Hillary was Sec of State that has 80,000 employees. Even Sarah Palin was Gov of a State with over 700,000 population.

The frame that Hillary is most experienced ever doesn't meet a reality and truth test.

[rocktivity]

19. And not knowing your history dooms you to repeat it.

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary thought that stockpiling superdelegates would render resistance futile once before.




rocktivity

[madokie]

2. She thinks the presidency is hers

and will say or do whatever it takes to make that happen. We seen it before and we'll see it play out this time.

Bernie will be our next President, hide and watch. If I was a betting man I'd bet good money on that

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. The U.S.S. Hillary is sinking... lower the lifeboats... Wall Street bankers and lobbyists first!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Nyan]

3. I've read the whole thing. Bill Curry hits it on the nail in every sentence!

Thanks so much for the article.
K & R for the exposure!!

[JRLeft]

4. Unlike last time she's likely to win.

A lot of Democrats aren't bothered by special interests groups owning the party.

[antigop]

5. "A lot of Democrats aren't bothered by special interests groups owning the party. "

Well, some Dems actually benefit from the status quo or haven't been burned (yet) by it.

[uponit7771]

7. Hillary leads with Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Gays and non poor whites ... fact. Sanders leads

... with pretty much the same coalition that Clinton lost her 08 bid with and the demos for that coalition have gotten worse.

[marmar]

8. And her lead in all those groups is shrinking.

The center cannot hold.

[uponit7771]

9. not enough for Sanders to win a primary... the center is very tilted towards her

[marmar]

10. Whatever. We're all entitled to our own viewpoints.

[uponit7771]

12. I see the poll for the last 4 month, we both should be grounded in reality

[marmar]

13. I'm observing trends. Perhaps reality is in the eye of the beholder, n'est-ce pas?

[uponit7771]

14. The trend lines here have an ending point though, they can't go on forever...

... you'd be right if there was no end to the primary

[CentralMass]

27. The votes have to be cast before they can be counted.

[mhatrw]

32. How does it feel to support the candidate who would definitely lose only all demographics

(except perhaps rich senior citizen women) if there were only more time to inform everyone and/or we had a corporate media that actually did so?

[uponit7771]

34. I will vote for the dem candidate

[liberal_at_heart]

11. Voters don't trust our politicians right now. Why would they trust the negative

campaigning that those same politicians are spouting? The answer is they don't. They don't believe all the negative campaigning and they are not responding to it. They are too busy sending a message to Washington that they are fed up with the corruption and the rigged game.

[Dragonfli]

21. At least the message we are sending to Washington is bloodless, unlike the messages Clinton sends

to South America which are delivered via the death, mutilation and slavery of children.

Note to Clinton - next time you want to "send a message" send a grown-up messenger in the form of a volunteer willing to die for you, or better yet, I hear that ink on paper is often more legible than blood on small innocent bodies.

Only mobsters, kidnappers and sociopaths "send a message" via bodies or body parts, something to chew on while you sit in front of perfectly good stationary and holding a working pen (one hopes not a pen filled with blood rather than ink, after all, you only needed to sign that one document with the devil with that pen)

I also notice that messages sent involving "diplomacy" as you would call it nearly always involve bodies and blood, which reminds me, those cluster bombs being used in the middle east, are they from among the inventory of weapons sold based on checks to your foundation?

/rant

[lunatica]

17. It's quite a phenomenon isn't it that business as usual just doesn't work anymore.

The establishment candidates seem to be fighting the war with old weapons. They think the same old campaign stump phrases are still valid, but they aren't. They treat us with disdain and it shows. They believe us to be easily manipulated by their wedge issues but we aren't anymore.

the same applies to the journalists. They only talk among themselves, among their elite lifelong peers and are tone deaf to anything they don't deem important.

That's why Trump and Sanders are gaining in the polls. No one is really interested in the same old, same old. Their supporters are polar opposites.

[Hydra]

25. Status quo can't be any other way

They are fighting to keep a system in place that no one but them wants.

They're like the conservatives fighting LBGT equality. They're appealing to people who are tired of their bullshit to save them from reality.

[CentralMass]

28. Well said.

[WillyT]

20. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[noiretextatique]

22. who is the real tonedeaf candidate?

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

[enigmatic]

23. This kind of campaign is all they know how to do

But it's 2016, not 1996. The internet and social media are the great levelers of truth and that's what's going to be her downfall.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. No doubt... the revolution is on! People gotta decide... are they in or out?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Lorien]

24. I've asked her supporters time and time again why anyone left of center should vote

FOR Hillary, and I've yet to be given any reply outside of "it's time for a woman President" and "would you rather have Trump?" Neither qualifies as an answer to my question. Apparently team Clinton doesn't know why we should vote for her either, since her strategy, once again, is to paint the opposition as a worse option. It might work if she could come up with a reason why she's better.

[Hydra]

26. She can't- all of her qualifications and policies are for the 1%

That's who she thought she needed to pitch to to win this cycle.

Her bad luck that this is the end of their era.

[Lorien]

29. Oh wait! I found a website that may answer our question!

http://www.reasonstovotehillary.com

[Nyan]

38. Every time I hear Hillary supporters, I'm astonished by how incoherent they sound.

Her 2008 supporters weren't like this. Not this bad.

[Lorien]

39. The eerie thing is how much they sound like Republicans that I've worked with

and I never thought of Dems as "low information voters" suffering from severe cognitive dissonance before, but that's what we have now.

[Lorien]

40. Plus there's their truly crazy conspiracy theories

I keep asking them to make a case for Hillary, but the few who respond to me say things like "we can't because DU will hide our responses!"

[Babel_17]

30. Pay the piper later, right now must not be embarrassed by Nevada and SC

The political landscape can drastically shift if Sanders does as good as his campaign privately hopes/the Clinton campaign fears.

There's a strong case that if Secretary Clinton wins SC in a big way then a lot of nerves will be settled, and the campaign will merely be a bit of a grind for Clinton, and not a hair raising experience for all concerned.

Imo, there is indeed an obvious risk to that calculation.

Though, at the end of the day, a lot of the impact from the results comes from managing expectations ahead of time. So, odds are, we're likely in for lots more serious campaigning regardless of how things exactly turn out.

[Peace Patriot]

31. marmar, thank you for posting this article! It is excellent!

[californiabernin]

33. This is a really worth reading in its entirety, which I just did!

Thanks for posting. There are paragraphs in this article that in themselves would make an excellent topic for a discussion thread.

I learned a lot from this.

[thesquanderer]

41. That's a really great piece, but I think the author did overstate his case once...

...in that Sanders did express a little more interest in there being a 2012 primary opponent for Obama than you would expect from reading that article. (Not that he wanted Obama defeated, just that he wanted a counterweight to everything that was pulling him rightward.)