Greg Sargent looked at this attempt this morning but I think it's important to organize and therefore simplify the problem with it which is two-fold.
1. Their most likely nominee, Jeb Bush, is in truth much more plausible in the role of an out of touch elitist.
What exactly makes her an elitist? Her wealth and power? But if she's from a family dynasty, at least hers' is more of a meritocratic and middle class dynasty then Jeb's. Her and her husband were not born into an already very wealthy and powerful family. Arguably the Clinton dynasty is a lot more self-made than the Bush dynasty which extends 3 generations.
2. More importantly is the point that Sargent makes-that what matters is not someone's personal history nearly as much as what their actual policies are. FDR was certainly from a political dynasty but no President has been more revered as a man of the people because of his policies.
This is what all the GOP attacks on Hillary miss. It's the policies, stupid, not the biography.
"Chozick finds that Republicans are beside themselves with glee over Hillary’s recent claim that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they left the White House — they think it rivals Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remark as powerful ammunition to portray her as “out of touch.” The “dead broke” remark will help Republicans portray a “gulf” between Clinton’s life and that of the “less affluent.”
"But there’s a problem with this diagnosis: Voters my well evaluate attacks on the image and character of candidates through the prism of their actual policy proposals and the priorities that underlie them. Many Dems believe the attacks on Romney as an elitist plutocrat were successful not simply because of his manner and profile, but also because they resonated withpublic perceptions that his policy proposals actually would favor the wealthy."
"David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Obama’s two presidential campaigns, arguably has a good sense of why the attacks on Romney worked. I asked him for comment on the GOP efforts to portray Clinton as out of touch, and he emailed:
"The case against Romney as an out-touch, economic [elitist] worked because all the pieces fit — profile, policy and pronouncements. He helped us make the case every day. Hillary’s campaign clearly is focused on the middle class and meeting the challenges of inequality and the lack of mobility in today’s economy. It’s about honoring the value of work."
"The Republicans may try and make a lifestyle case, but lifestyle is the least of it. It’s what you believe and where you propose to lead."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/13/morning-plum-the-problem-with-gop-attacks-on-hillary-as-an-out-of-touch-elitist/
This is very similar to when the GOP runs a woman and so think they've proven the party is pro-woman or minority which shows their pro-minority. No, it's not enough to run a woman, a black. or a Latino if the policies are anti-woman, racist, and full of bigotry.
Another tact they've been trying is that Hillary is over the hill. This blatant ageist attack is offensive on its own terms.Also sexist as this is the party of Reagan who won when he was 69 and age wasn't an issue for them then. But it's also besides the point, Hillary may be considerably older than Rubio-and yes he's a Latino-so this lifestyle campaign would say-Latinos should vote for the younger Latino man than the older white woman.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/marco-rubios-ageist-attack-on-hillary.html
However, it's she who's policies are progressive and his who are stale and reactionary-like his mourning the end of the pointless Cuban embargo and his repudiation of his own immigration bill in Congress to win the GOP nomination.
1. Their most likely nominee, Jeb Bush, is in truth much more plausible in the role of an out of touch elitist.
What exactly makes her an elitist? Her wealth and power? But if she's from a family dynasty, at least hers' is more of a meritocratic and middle class dynasty then Jeb's. Her and her husband were not born into an already very wealthy and powerful family. Arguably the Clinton dynasty is a lot more self-made than the Bush dynasty which extends 3 generations.
2. More importantly is the point that Sargent makes-that what matters is not someone's personal history nearly as much as what their actual policies are. FDR was certainly from a political dynasty but no President has been more revered as a man of the people because of his policies.
This is what all the GOP attacks on Hillary miss. It's the policies, stupid, not the biography.
"Chozick finds that Republicans are beside themselves with glee over Hillary’s recent claim that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they left the White House — they think it rivals Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remark as powerful ammunition to portray her as “out of touch.” The “dead broke” remark will help Republicans portray a “gulf” between Clinton’s life and that of the “less affluent.”
"But there’s a problem with this diagnosis: Voters my well evaluate attacks on the image and character of candidates through the prism of their actual policy proposals and the priorities that underlie them. Many Dems believe the attacks on Romney as an elitist plutocrat were successful not simply because of his manner and profile, but also because they resonated withpublic perceptions that his policy proposals actually would favor the wealthy."
"David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Obama’s two presidential campaigns, arguably has a good sense of why the attacks on Romney worked. I asked him for comment on the GOP efforts to portray Clinton as out of touch, and he emailed:
"The case against Romney as an out-touch, economic [elitist] worked because all the pieces fit — profile, policy and pronouncements. He helped us make the case every day. Hillary’s campaign clearly is focused on the middle class and meeting the challenges of inequality and the lack of mobility in today’s economy. It’s about honoring the value of work."
"The Republicans may try and make a lifestyle case, but lifestyle is the least of it. It’s what you believe and where you propose to lead."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/13/morning-plum-the-problem-with-gop-attacks-on-hillary-as-an-out-of-touch-elitist/
This is very similar to when the GOP runs a woman and so think they've proven the party is pro-woman or minority which shows their pro-minority. No, it's not enough to run a woman, a black. or a Latino if the policies are anti-woman, racist, and full of bigotry.
Another tact they've been trying is that Hillary is over the hill. This blatant ageist attack is offensive on its own terms.Also sexist as this is the party of Reagan who won when he was 69 and age wasn't an issue for them then. But it's also besides the point, Hillary may be considerably older than Rubio-and yes he's a Latino-so this lifestyle campaign would say-Latinos should vote for the younger Latino man than the older white woman.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/marco-rubios-ageist-attack-on-hillary.html
However, it's she who's policies are progressive and his who are stale and reactionary-like his mourning the end of the pointless Cuban embargo and his repudiation of his own immigration bill in Congress to win the GOP nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment