I think a big difference just in general between Hillary and Bernie is that he tends to talk in glittering generalities. She prefers to actually put some meat on the bone and explain how you get there.
This is why I think her progressive with results slogan is a winner. As Greg Sargent argues, she got out from under the Bernie the populist her the Wall St. moderate meme.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/14/morning-plum-hillary-clinton-finally-finds-her-sweet-spot/
Bernie's issues tend to be narrower and even on his big issues he tends to keep repeating the same slogans again and again. Break up the banks. Get money out of politics.
Matt Yglesias makes this point well, regarding financial reform:
" Sanders's fiery message is well received by the party's base, but not only is his delivery odd, the debate revealed real limits to his range of competency. He clearly stumbled through two efforts to state his (by no means wrong) view that Russia's aggression in Syria is an overreach that Vladimir Putin will regret. He's also clearly more comfortable discussing broad general themes like the superiority of the Nordic social model than delving into specifics. When Clinton got into the weeds of financial regulation policy to argue that actually her plan was tougher than Sanders's, he seemed almost shocked and then pivoted back to his demand to break up the largest banks without addressing Clinton's actual argument about shadow banks."
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/9528881/2015-democratic-debate-cnn
I agree-I don't think his style is great for the debate format where you have to be more reactive-rather than simply repeating the same meme again and again.
"As a performer Sanders's essential problem is that he functions at only a single setting. Everything he says is delivered with an equal sense of urgency, like a trumpet that blares the same few notes in an endless loop. As an orator Sanders tends to bark his messages, with accompanying upper-body gestures that make it appear he's conducting an imaginary orchestra. By no means did Sanders commit any major errors, and his supporters will find plenty to like in his performance. But this first debate in particular was an opportunity for him to expand that circle of support by drawing new voters to his cause. That goal he left unaccomplished."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-schroeder/hillary-and-the-lost-boys_b_8290934.html
To focus on finanical reform, Yglesias points out that she really has come forward with some much more interesting ideas on FR than Bernie's rather one-dimensional focus.
"When the debate briefly took a turn toward Wall Street regulation, Clinton took a surprising tack and argued that her plan to curb financial risk is actually tougher than Bernie Sanders's mantra of breaking up the big banks. She offered a reasonable argument on this point, noting that many troubles in the financial system came from institutions that were either not especially big (Lehman Brothers) or not even banks (AIG) and thus could slip the grasp of Sanders's rather crude plan."
"Sanders did not reply to this in detail or mount a specific defense of his emphasis on size per se. Instead, reflecting his overall view of the ultimate significance of political economy above all else, he went lofty with the idea that what's fundamentally needed is systematic change to curb the power of finance over the political system. As he later put it, "the power of corporate America is so great" that we need "a political revolution when millions of people come together and say we need a government to work for all of us and not just billionaires."
"This is the fundamental difference between the two. Clinton is a detail-oriented, practical-minded literalist, while Sanders is much more of a big-picture guy. On the stump, which is all about passion and oratory, this makes Sanders considerably more compelling. But in the context of a reasonably friendly debate, Clinton seemed comfortable and always on point."
Note that when Hillary made this interesting claim Bernie' reaction was to pivot onto money in politics-which is actually confusing apples and oranges.
Reform of the financial system is one thing. Reform of the campaign financial thing is a distinctly other subject. So it doesn't actually make any sense to rebut Hillary's point that she's got a better financial reform plan by declaring Well anyway I don't have a Super PAC.
She actually has a pretty compelling financial reform plan.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9483329/hillary-clinton-banks
I think her focus on results is what we need dearly. Haven't we had enough rhetoric that leads nowhere-thinking about the GOP House in particular?
Hillary is always about Fine but what are we going to do about it and she's dead right. What the GOP has shown us is the fallacy in thinking the less expererience the better the result.
This is why I think her progressive with results slogan is a winner. As Greg Sargent argues, she got out from under the Bernie the populist her the Wall St. moderate meme.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/14/morning-plum-hillary-clinton-finally-finds-her-sweet-spot/
Bernie's issues tend to be narrower and even on his big issues he tends to keep repeating the same slogans again and again. Break up the banks. Get money out of politics.
Matt Yglesias makes this point well, regarding financial reform:
" Sanders's fiery message is well received by the party's base, but not only is his delivery odd, the debate revealed real limits to his range of competency. He clearly stumbled through two efforts to state his (by no means wrong) view that Russia's aggression in Syria is an overreach that Vladimir Putin will regret. He's also clearly more comfortable discussing broad general themes like the superiority of the Nordic social model than delving into specifics. When Clinton got into the weeds of financial regulation policy to argue that actually her plan was tougher than Sanders's, he seemed almost shocked and then pivoted back to his demand to break up the largest banks without addressing Clinton's actual argument about shadow banks."
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/9528881/2015-democratic-debate-cnn
I agree-I don't think his style is great for the debate format where you have to be more reactive-rather than simply repeating the same meme again and again.
"As a performer Sanders's essential problem is that he functions at only a single setting. Everything he says is delivered with an equal sense of urgency, like a trumpet that blares the same few notes in an endless loop. As an orator Sanders tends to bark his messages, with accompanying upper-body gestures that make it appear he's conducting an imaginary orchestra. By no means did Sanders commit any major errors, and his supporters will find plenty to like in his performance. But this first debate in particular was an opportunity for him to expand that circle of support by drawing new voters to his cause. That goal he left unaccomplished."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-schroeder/hillary-and-the-lost-boys_b_8290934.html
To focus on finanical reform, Yglesias points out that she really has come forward with some much more interesting ideas on FR than Bernie's rather one-dimensional focus.
"When the debate briefly took a turn toward Wall Street regulation, Clinton took a surprising tack and argued that her plan to curb financial risk is actually tougher than Bernie Sanders's mantra of breaking up the big banks. She offered a reasonable argument on this point, noting that many troubles in the financial system came from institutions that were either not especially big (Lehman Brothers) or not even banks (AIG) and thus could slip the grasp of Sanders's rather crude plan."
"Sanders did not reply to this in detail or mount a specific defense of his emphasis on size per se. Instead, reflecting his overall view of the ultimate significance of political economy above all else, he went lofty with the idea that what's fundamentally needed is systematic change to curb the power of finance over the political system. As he later put it, "the power of corporate America is so great" that we need "a political revolution when millions of people come together and say we need a government to work for all of us and not just billionaires."
"This is the fundamental difference between the two. Clinton is a detail-oriented, practical-minded literalist, while Sanders is much more of a big-picture guy. On the stump, which is all about passion and oratory, this makes Sanders considerably more compelling. But in the context of a reasonably friendly debate, Clinton seemed comfortable and always on point."
Note that when Hillary made this interesting claim Bernie' reaction was to pivot onto money in politics-which is actually confusing apples and oranges.
Reform of the financial system is one thing. Reform of the campaign financial thing is a distinctly other subject. So it doesn't actually make any sense to rebut Hillary's point that she's got a better financial reform plan by declaring Well anyway I don't have a Super PAC.
She actually has a pretty compelling financial reform plan.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9483329/hillary-clinton-banks
I think her focus on results is what we need dearly. Haven't we had enough rhetoric that leads nowhere-thinking about the GOP House in particular?
Hillary is always about Fine but what are we going to do about it and she's dead right. What the GOP has shown us is the fallacy in thinking the less expererience the better the result.
No comments:
Post a Comment