I'm not at all sure she should provided he continues not to attack her for a few reasons.
1. It makes her the one to draw first blood.
2. It might alienate the Bernie supporters we need to support her in the general.
3. It also would represent a major about face in strategy that the media will inevitably mark as 'panic.'
That's the problem with shifting strategies during a campaign. The media will swamp you with unsolicited advice but if you suddenly actually listen and heed it, then they gloat that you must not know what you're doing and am now desperate.
This is sort of how I read the reaction to her apology. For the longest time they demanded an apology. Once she-I feel mistakenly-apologized, now they are saying So she admits she did something really wrong.
However, there is a very funny hashtag on Twitter right now about what Hillary's real apology is.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/HillarysApology?src=hash
Basically, as a woman Hillary is expected to be prefect. She had to have perfect foresight on what might be classified in the future-when in fact there is a big problem at State of over-classifying things-she had to know in 2009 that her doing what plenty of other government officials both at State, Defense, and in the various state governments; she is expected to apologize for while doing nothing wrong, still somehow 'cutting corners' or not answering questions about her email in a perfectly immaculate way.
The press seems to want an Immaculate Answer on her emails.
Ok. back to Bernie. While there are the disadvantages I mentioned up top on attacking him there are a few benefits in her doing so as well.
1. If he truly refuses to respond even if she started attacking him then he would get fried. Of course, some will hold it against her-after all it might seem very hardcore to attack an out and out pacifist. For the most part I agree you only want to attack in self-defense. As Bernie doesn't attack her-explicitly-then this would mean she shouldn't attack him.
But:
2. Remember, he is her adversary. This is a war between them. He has decided not to attack her and maybe that seems very laudable. But it also plays to his strengths as he doesn't have the resources to have protracted hostilities with her.
If they both went negative, he'd be the one buried.
"So Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack. And part of his shtick is that he doesn't do conventional politics. So, Devine notes, he will not directly criticize or poke at Clinton. For sure, no personal attacks or cheap shots. "That won't help him," Devine says. "He rejects the status quo of politics." Sanders won't even do a straight-up contrast ad—as in, Bernie Sanders believes X about subject Y, but Hillary Clinton believes Z. "If we do that, we're done," Devine says. "If we do a classic comparative ad, it's over. We'll have to be smarter."
"And Team Sanders does have what it considers to be a smarter way: implying a contrast. In previous campaigns, Devine says, "We have constantly embedded contrast in everything we do." One example: During the 2006 Senate race, Tarrant's residence became a political issue because he had claimed a Florida mansion as his home for tax purposes. Sanders ran a biographical ad in which he declared he worked in Washington and lived in Burlington—an indirect jab at Tarrant. In the campaign against Clinton, Devine notes, "There will be a lot of implicit negative. But it won't look negative. It won't feel negative."
"That's how Sanders recently handled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. He opposes the measure as a sop to corporate America and billionaires. Asked about Clinton's view—she has referred positively to this trade deal in the past but more recently has avoided stating a firm position—Sanders didn't proclaim that she's in bed with the 1 percent; he called on her to take a clear stance. "It's not a question of watching this," he said. "You're going to have determine which side are you on." Devine points out that "this is not negative, but contrasting. When you offer voters a contrast on the issues, they don't take that as a negative." He adds that Sanders is "very good at this."
"Contrast without attacking—that's the mantra. "As someone making the ads, it will be a difficult challenge," Devine says. "We have to present the differences in the ads without him coming across as part of the political system." Devine fears that if Sanders crosses that line, the Clinton campaign will fire back hard: "They have all the tonnage. We're dead."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/bernie-sanders-plan-to-beat-hillary-clinton
1. It makes her the one to draw first blood.
2. It might alienate the Bernie supporters we need to support her in the general.
3. It also would represent a major about face in strategy that the media will inevitably mark as 'panic.'
That's the problem with shifting strategies during a campaign. The media will swamp you with unsolicited advice but if you suddenly actually listen and heed it, then they gloat that you must not know what you're doing and am now desperate.
This is sort of how I read the reaction to her apology. For the longest time they demanded an apology. Once she-I feel mistakenly-apologized, now they are saying So she admits she did something really wrong.
However, there is a very funny hashtag on Twitter right now about what Hillary's real apology is.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/HillarysApology?src=hash
Basically, as a woman Hillary is expected to be prefect. She had to have perfect foresight on what might be classified in the future-when in fact there is a big problem at State of over-classifying things-she had to know in 2009 that her doing what plenty of other government officials both at State, Defense, and in the various state governments; she is expected to apologize for while doing nothing wrong, still somehow 'cutting corners' or not answering questions about her email in a perfectly immaculate way.
The press seems to want an Immaculate Answer on her emails.
Ok. back to Bernie. While there are the disadvantages I mentioned up top on attacking him there are a few benefits in her doing so as well.
1. If he truly refuses to respond even if she started attacking him then he would get fried. Of course, some will hold it against her-after all it might seem very hardcore to attack an out and out pacifist. For the most part I agree you only want to attack in self-defense. As Bernie doesn't attack her-explicitly-then this would mean she shouldn't attack him.
But:
2. Remember, he is her adversary. This is a war between them. He has decided not to attack her and maybe that seems very laudable. But it also plays to his strengths as he doesn't have the resources to have protracted hostilities with her.
If they both went negative, he'd be the one buried.
"So Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack. And part of his shtick is that he doesn't do conventional politics. So, Devine notes, he will not directly criticize or poke at Clinton. For sure, no personal attacks or cheap shots. "That won't help him," Devine says. "He rejects the status quo of politics." Sanders won't even do a straight-up contrast ad—as in, Bernie Sanders believes X about subject Y, but Hillary Clinton believes Z. "If we do that, we're done," Devine says. "If we do a classic comparative ad, it's over. We'll have to be smarter."
"And Team Sanders does have what it considers to be a smarter way: implying a contrast. In previous campaigns, Devine says, "We have constantly embedded contrast in everything we do." One example: During the 2006 Senate race, Tarrant's residence became a political issue because he had claimed a Florida mansion as his home for tax purposes. Sanders ran a biographical ad in which he declared he worked in Washington and lived in Burlington—an indirect jab at Tarrant. In the campaign against Clinton, Devine notes, "There will be a lot of implicit negative. But it won't look negative. It won't feel negative."
"That's how Sanders recently handled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. He opposes the measure as a sop to corporate America and billionaires. Asked about Clinton's view—she has referred positively to this trade deal in the past but more recently has avoided stating a firm position—Sanders didn't proclaim that she's in bed with the 1 percent; he called on her to take a clear stance. "It's not a question of watching this," he said. "You're going to have determine which side are you on." Devine points out that "this is not negative, but contrasting. When you offer voters a contrast on the issues, they don't take that as a negative." He adds that Sanders is "very good at this."
"Contrast without attacking—that's the mantra. "As someone making the ads, it will be a difficult challenge," Devine says. "We have to present the differences in the ads without him coming across as part of the political system." Devine fears that if Sanders crosses that line, the Clinton campaign will fire back hard: "They have all the tonnage. We're dead."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/bernie-sanders-plan-to-beat-hillary-clinton
Aha! So he's not a pacifist. He too is aggressive, but his aggression is passive-aggressiveness. I think you'll agree that life experience shows that passive aggressive people can be the most insidious aggressors of all.
You could argue then that in eschewing negative attacks Hillary is playing the game on Bernie's terrain.
It's like if two countries were at war but only one had a good airforce but the country with the strong airforce agreed not to use it in order to be fair.
3. Another reason to hit Bernie is that he may have something of a glass jaw. He doesn't do so well when he is contradicted. This is something that is more about the debate than her attacking him on stump speeches.
I would say that if she does go negative-and I'm not saying whether she should or not-she should mostly leave this to surrogates and ads.
The only time I would argue she should directly confront him a little is at the debates. The first night she should put him on defense.
4. The Bernie supporters seem to think that Sanders is all about issues and Hillary is somehow about just biography, or something.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-bernie-maniac-razzes-hillary.html
Which is just silly-I support her because I know I agree with her on most things. Unlike Bernie supporters, I don't think every issue is a litmus test. If Hillary doesn't immediately denounce TPP the emoprogs have a cow.
Yet, there are issues where reasonable people can disagree. Take the minimum wage. Bernie has come out for a $15 MW while Hillary has called for it being raised significantly but hasn't committed yet on $15. For the Bernie supporters that means Bernie's the 'True progressive'-their actual words-while Hillary shows herself by this to not care about the working poor.
But if you listen to the economists, there is good reason to wonder whether a $15 MW at the national level is the best step at least yet.
https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/629309663432065024
If you have $15 MW in some locales but not the federal level right away that gives us time to test its effects-which really might not be all good.
But anyway, this just shows that Bernie maniacs have the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power-where the President is all powerful and doesn't have a Congress and Judiciary that checks his power.
It was this same erroneous theory that led many of the Bernie maniacs to inveigh against President Obama for not singlehandedly fixing all our nation's problems-that had built up over 30 years, over night.
Bernie is selling his supporters the lie that he can do it all himself. What emoprogs never get is that change takes time, It doesn't happen overnight.
Nevertheless, there are some issues that Hillary can attack Bernie from the Left-and it will be interesting to see how he handles it.
Again, she doesn't have to attack him personally but just talk issues. She should push him on immigration, gun control, women's rights, and issues of concern to African-Americans which he has stumbled with.
She also needs to question him on what it means for him to be a 'socialist.' Ask him if he still thinks the Democratic party is bankrupt and if so why is he using us as his vehicle to power?
He will probably say what his supporters always say 'He's not a socialist, he's a democratic socialist.'
Fine, Her followup question ought to be: so what is a democratic socialist? In what way is this different than a regular socialist? How is a democratic socialist?
Ralph Nader is also a socialist and he has called for the nationalization of the Fortune 500.
Does Benie agree with this? Would he like to see large parts of the economy or certain big industries nationalized?
Is 'democratic socialism' another word for Fabian Socialism?'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
Would he consider Hugo Chavez a democratic socialist? Because he too was elected but once he got in office he wanted to be dictator for life. So is democratic socialism just using democratic means to dictatorial ends-as was the path to power of even Hitler and Mussolini?
I think this is fair game and not McCarthyite as Bernie maniacs like to claim.
We ought to know exactly what Bernie's agenda is if he's running for President. He says he's a socialist and that the Democratic party is bankrupt. What does this mean?
By the way, I suspect the moderator might ask some of these questions his/herself.
So Hillary can also play off that.
See also this Daily Kos post that argues she would benefit by attacking him.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/12/1420604/-Attacking-Bernie-Sanders-Is-What-Clinton-Needs-To-Do
PS Remember too that even if Bernie hasn't attacked Hillary himself, he hasn't had to as the media has taken that role on itself during the primary.
Bernie would never engage in the email scandal himself, but even so he benefits from it. So you could argue if Hillary attacked him, it would be self-defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment