Goodbye to all that: Hillary ditches the caution that helped doom her 2008 campaign - By Joan Walsh

[DonViejo]

Clinton isn’t obsessed with working class whites, though she won’t ignore them. She’s expanding the Obama coalition

JOAN WALSH

One of Hillary Clinton’s first ominous stumbles in the 2008 presidential race came during an October 2007 debate, when she waffled on a question about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. The plan “makes a lot of sense,” she told moderator Tim Russert, but she also expressed rambling reservations. It wasn’t Clinton’s stance but her waffling that got her into trouble – a three-minute YouTube clip went viral, and not in a good way. The erstwhile-frontrunner seemed to be trying to have it both ways on a divisive issue.

That cautious Hillary Clinton is gone, especially on immigration issues. Her bold promise to expand President Obama’s executive actions on immigration (she already came out for drivers’ licenses last month), combined with her speech calling for an “end to the era of mass incarceration,” shows that Clinton plans to embrace two of the movements that have emerged in the Obama years, on immigration and criminal justice reform.

There’s also an obvious political calculation: in 2016, Clinton will be less worried about reassuring and winning over skeptical white working class voters than in 2008. That’s because she’s no longer trying to reassemble the (Bill) Clinton coalition, but hold together and expand the Obama coalition. She hopes years from now people will call it the Hillary coalition.

I wrote yesterday that Clinton’s mass incarceration speech, plus her immigration stand, told me that she’d rejected the wisdom of advisors who’d theorized that she could “expand the map” in 2016 by winning working class whites, especially in places like Arkansas, Indiana and Missouri. It was widely dismissed as a pipe dream, and her moves on immigration and criminal justice show that she agrees: She’s not going to pander to white voters with cautious stands on immigration and crime.

Her earlier embrace of gay marriage was a sign she knew Democrats had won the culture wars, and that she shouldn’t worry about reassuring older white evangelical voters she shared their notion of family values. She’s now making the same move on immigration and criminal justice.

-snip-

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/07/goodbye_to_all_that_hillary_ditches_the_caution_that_helped_doom_her_2008_campaign/

[NYC_SKP]

1. "she’d rejected the wisdom of advisors who’d theorized that she could “expand the map” in 2016"

So Brave, so Courageous!

Casting off the advice of advisers? OMG, call the press!

NOTE TO VOTERS: Look for candidates that don't need advisers to figure out where they stand on issues.

Conversely:

If a person can't answer a question immediately, consistently, and straight from the heart, look for someone else.

Now let's see her come out against the TPP...

Oh never mind, to me she's utterly worthless as a Democratic leader, especially as someone who can take us in the right direction.

[DonViejo]

3. Good luck with that...

NOTE TO VOTERS: Look for candidates that don't need advisers to figure out where they stand on issues.

You're really naive if you believe that every candidate, including Senators Sanders, Warren, and even President Obama do not have advisers that help them figure out where (and how) to stand on issues. Even candidates for City Council, Mayor, State Rep, State Senator and Governor have advisers that assist in developing stands on issues.

[NCTraveler]

5. That candidate doesn't exist. Anywhere.

"NOTE TO VOTERS: Look for candidates that don't need advisers to figure out where they stand on issues."

Any candidate who would do that would have to be arrogant beyond words. It just doesn't happen. Stick around and you will see how the game of politics is played. It can be difficult to grasp the intricacies when just starting out.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Did you catch Sanders on MSNBC last night?

He doesn't skate around questions, he doesn't give vague answers.

Study him as he gets more and more airtime, I think you'll agree that he's refreshingly frank.

Does he take advice? I'm sure he does.

But you won't see articles discussing how he's taking a bold new direction casting off past strategies yada yada.

He's just Bernie, being Bernie.

I think America will embrace him for that quality alone.

[DonViejo]

8. Nothing wrong with dreaming, I guess, so; dream on.

[NYC_SKP]

9. "The Clinton campaign is like a large balloon floating around in search of a pin."

She's not my candidate, not my first or second or third.

I think she means well but is buried by her own ambition and totally out of touch with the base.

She and husband have, now, decades of missteps that are going to be their undoing.

Meanwhile, we have a real candidate with integrity and no skeletons.

Support whom you want, but I think she'll lose the general election handily because the broad range of US voters know BS when they see it and the GOP will tear her apart.

[DonViejo]

10. Please provide a link to any comment wherein I state I am supporting Sec'y Clinton...

You can't do it because I've never made such a comment on DU.

I'm not criticising Senator Sanders; I'm critiquing your political naivete. But, by all means, continue to be idealistic and dream of whatever it is you dream about.

[NYC_SKP]

11. I dreamt that Clinton would be defeated by a black dude named Hussein and I was called a dreamer.

I expect similar results this time, but may have to work twice as hard.

I apologize for presuming you are a supporter of SOS Clinton.

[Omar4Dems]

7. Well, yeah...

"...and that she shouldn’t worry about reassuring older white evangelical voters she shared their notion of family values."

Duh. Even if she called for mass incarceration of gays, "older white evangelical voters" would never vote for her.

[Gothmog]

12. Expanding the base is a good thing