Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it: She’s already running a losing campaign

[cali]

Hillary Clinton joins the race for president today. If you believe the leaks from her staff, and there’s no reason you shouldn’t, she’ll do it in a video released at noon as she herself flies high above the nation in a chartered plane. She and her top advisors, all smart people, must think it’s a good idea. It doesn’t feel like one.

For months Clinton has run a front-porch campaign — if by porch you mean Boo Radley’s. Getting her outdoors is hard enough; when she does get out it’s often to give paid speeches to people who look just like her: educated, prosperous and privileged. Needing desperately to connect with the broader public, she opts for the virtual reality of a pre-taped video delivered via social media. Go figure.

Her leakers say she’ll head out on a listening tour like the one that kicked off her first Senate race. They say listening to real people talk about real stuff will make her seem more real. This too may be a good idea, but it made more sense when she was a rookie candidate seeking a lesser office in a state she barely knew. Running for president is different. So are the times. Voters are more desperate now, and in a far worse mood. If you invite their questions, you’d better have some answers. I’ll return to this point shortly.

Her leakers say she’ll avoid big events, rallies, stadiums, that sort of thing. This is about 2008, when she and her tone-deaf team seemed to be planning a coronation. This time they say she doesn’t want to come off as quite so presumptuous. Yet next week she keynotes a ‘Global Women’s Summit’ cohosted by Tina Brown and the New York Times, at which “world leaders, industry icons, movie stars and CEOs convene with artists, rebels, peacemakers and activists to tell their stories and share their plans of action.” Orchestra seats go for $300.

<snip>
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/hillary_clinton_just_doesnt_get_it_shes_already_running_a_losing_campaign/

[leftofcool]

1. They really do hate Hillary over at Salon, eh?

[bigworld]

2. She really hasn't mastered the whole "optics" thing

She knows she has to appear more authentic and real but instead of actually dropping the pretense and being herself, she pretends to be authentic and real. And people see right through it.

It's a shame because she's bright, insightful, and would make a good president. It's just this icky - and unneeded - fakeness which scares people away.

Hillary supporters -- don't ignore this or just write off articles like this. There's a real unease out there with her and it needs to be addressed, not ignored.

[leftofcool]

4. I might pay more attention if this hadn't been the 6th hit piece on Hillary coming from Salon.

[Sheepshank]

57. And yet one of very many from this poster

I get it...she hates HRC...she posted that she will vote for her if HRC is the nominee...but all the bashing in the mean time from this op is getting annoying

[cilla4progress]

27. I think you hit it on the head.

I would be so much more on-board with her if she would drop the mask. Just come out and say, unscripted, that she knows she is polarizing. Even that in some ways she is awkward, has a problem with leaky campaigns and drama. That she doesn't really know why that is, but recognizes it's just part of "Planet Hillary." That perhaps some of it is indeed due to her gender, but she's not going to get bogged down in it. That people should vote for her because of her incredible resume and experience, but also because of her energy, her international connections, and most of all because she has a true heart for improving the lives of the middle-class and those without a voice. THat she believes she can be a competent, progressive leader for our nation. Not because it is a milestone she wants to achieve for herself.

As you say, I think she just needs to be real - have a real sense of humor about herself, let down her guard - and let the chips fall where they may. Which may be not in her favor.

She just seems to want it too badly.

But anyway - you say it better than I. THanks for helping me understand and articulate it.

[appalachiablue]

31. If she could get Eliz. Warren to do her speeches, that would help a lot! Seriously, people

have different skills and talents, obviously.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. I agree with you 100%. And despite the fact that she is so brilliant,

aware, etc., she still comes off as pretentious, calculating, and self-righteous. People don't like Hillary Clinton--they've only forgotten that they don't and never truly did. It's hard for a woman; we are not held to the same standards as men. It really sucks, but it's the truth.

As for Hillary's current campaign, in my view, not only does she still have work to do to shed this image of her, she truly needs to make amends for her campaign's resort to racist dog whistles back in 2008. Many black Americans haven't totally forgiven her, her husband, and their surrogates for the scorched earth campaign they ran back then. She can't come off as snide or condescending towards the black community. She really needs to own up to that and make a sincere attempt to repair that damage.

A dose of candor and humility will do her some good.

While the majority of black people do like the Clintons and appreciate what Bill Clinton's presidency did for the country, there are still scars from 2008.

I am in the minority. I do not care for the Clintons at all. Their ideology; their policies; their calculated approaches to politics; their insincerity...the fact that they are close friends to the Bushes and the McCains just doesn't sit well with me at all.

However, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will support her and I will obviously vote for her--unless she does something unforgiveable.

[RBInMaine]

3. Salon can go piss on itself.

[leftofcool]

5. Yep!

[Beacool]

33. This.........

I care about their opinion as much as I care about the myriad of anti-Hillary posts on this site, which is zilch. She barely announced that she's running and the naysayers are already predicting that she will lose. I get the feeling that a lot of these folks would rather see a Republican president so that they may smugly point a finger and proclaim that they were right all along. Well, they can all go screw themselves.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. You and I may not agree on much when it comes to Hillary Clinton...

...but one thing we both agree on:

It is absolutely unacceptable for a Republican to occupy the White House. That just won't do.

So, I hope she runs a far better campaign than she did in 2008. Like I said, I hope she learned from past mistakes, practice some humility--fight back strong, but be cognizant of how she comes across. I think she'll be fine. But I maintain that she has to earn my support; I'm not going to just give it to her willy-nilly.

I believe that same prescriptions were placed on Obama when he ran; he needed to earn support. She has to do the same.

[Beacool]

50. I won't argue that she needs to earn support.

What annoys me is the unending Debbie Downer posts on this site. Legitimate policy disagreements are one thing, endless petty comments are an altogether different animal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. What disappoints me is ...

so many wish to put on an air that "if she would just say the right thing ..."; when the truth is, she will never "say the right thing", for them.

[Beacool]

53. Yep, she could never win in their eyes, no matter what she says.

[musicblind]

40. I agree, that article was extremely bias.

Does Hillary have a relatability problem? Yes. But they act like doing speeches on Global Warming is a bad thing.

[Sienna86]

6. I don't know how she will not appear to be part of the 1%

I have a problem in believing she understands the plight of the 99%. The comment of the Clinton's being broke after leaving the White House still resonate in my mind. I kept comparing the Clinton Foundation to Jimmy Carter's work for Habitat for Humanity.

[OKNancy]

8. from Robert Reich....

I have no problem with the "broke" comment.... do you know how much they have to spend on lawyers?
It's still going on.

---------------------------------

Which brings me to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Some wonder about the strength of her values and ideals. I don’t. I’ve known her since she was 19 years old, and have no doubt where her heart is. For her entire career she’s been deeply committed to equal opportunity and upward mobility.

Some worry she’s been too compromised by big money – that the circle of wealthy donors she and her husband have cultivated over the years has dulled her sensitivity to the struggling middle class and poor.

But it’s wrong to assume great wealth, or even a social circle of the wealthy, is incompatible with a deep commitment to reform – as Teddy Roosevelt and his fifth-cousin Franklin clearly demonstrated.

http://robertreich.org/post/116045764740

[Blanks]

14. There you go...

I expect we will be reminded of the background of the Roosevelts a lot in the next year and a half.

[karynnj]

38. Which is silly - the Roosevelts were born to great wealth and culture that said they had to

give back. Bill Clinton was born poor to a single mother and Hillary Clinton to a middle class family. They did not have the money, the class status - that meant that they were peers to other wealthy people, or the idea that because they were given so much, they were expected to give back. ( Seriously -- if you wanted to raise this example, you should have done so when FDR's 4th cousin was the nominee in 2004 - he WAS born to privilege.)

In the 1990s, the NYT's wrote of the Clintons representing something different - a meritocracy rather than an aristocracy. Their positions were their result of the skills and talents they had. They were not born to go to Yale Law School, they earned that chance. They earned everything they got.

At this point, they have been members of a very rarified elite for over 40 years. They are neither the poor or middle class kids they were or the young overachievers new to privilege they were after Yale. They are two wealthy people who have been among the most powerful in the world for at least 20 years.

[Blanks]

44. I suppose if one struggles hard enough...

One can find enough differences between the situations (as you have done) to negate the similarities.

The point is: just because someone is aquainted with the wealthy, doesn't mean that they will spend all of their time working exclusively FOR the benefit of the wealthy.

I have no problem with the Clintons. They're talented and intelligent people. Of course they've taken advantage of their skills to go as far as they possibly can. I'm disinclined to hold that against them.

The really silly thing here is the concept that being born into great wealth and culture requires that you give back. Would you pass that on to the Bush family, I don't think they were informed that this 'give back' thing was the gospel that you seem to believe that it is.

[karynnj]

45. I agree completely -- and I did NOT mean it as a negative

My point was that where you could say the Roosevelts ignored their own economic status and acted for the good of those less fortunate, with the Clintons, they are ignoring their CURRENT economic benefit AND they have real life experiences on what is faced by those who are either poor or middle class.

Note that almost everyone thought it was significant that John Edwards was not born to wealth or any elite status. The same is true here. It is entirely likely that the middle class 18 year old Hillary Clinton did not have the same attitude to money that the majority of her elite college peers - many from boarding school backgrounds did. ( I used 2004 for a reason - Edwards was actually wealthier after he was 30 years old than Kerry was at that point in his life until he married Teresa. Yet - although it was Kerry who voted against the bankruptcy bill and was by far the more liberal - some argued for Edwards because he was not born rich as understanding that life better. Edwards, like HRC, did have a background when as a young person he experienced the normal financial issues of a middle class person.)

The point I was making is that HRC DOES NOT NEED the point that the best of the wealthy elite saw a responsibility to help others - noblesse oblige. She really was born to a family that was very mid America middle class.

I mentioned the 1990s article because it argued that both Clintons rose to the top of a meritocracy. The contrast was - meritocracy (you earn a place) vs aristocracy (you are born into it).

[Blanks]

46. My apologies. I confuse easily. eom

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. I agree! The attacks on the Kennedys and the Roosevelts...

...I've always felt were utterly ridiculous. The Kennedys did not have to choose to give back to their community or serve the country during times of war. They voluntarily did so. The Roosevelts were the same.

The problem I've always seen is that wealthy families who happen to be liberal are often attacked for being "hypocrites". Nonsense! One doesn't have to be poor in order to understand the plight of unfortunate people. (Warren Buffet, the CEO of Costco understand very well.)

The Clintons' wealth is not a concern for me. They're pretension is. Hillary doesn't have to try and pretend to not be wealthy. She comes off as unbelievable, inauthentic and insincere.

Own up to that wealth, then explain how it is fair that being among the wealthy doesn't absolve one from social responsibility, or exempt those from giving back to the less fortunate.

But trying to pretend you're just like me, Hillary? Really? I give her the side-eye.

I get what Rob Reich is saying, but I don't fully agree.

Hillary has a lot to do to repair her image.

[musicblind]

41. She won't appear not to be a part of the 1%

She is part of the 1%, so is Michael Moore, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama and Bill Maher.

Just because someone has millions does not mean that they cannot understand what it is like to suffer. I have never had Ebola, but I have a deep sympathy for the plight of West Africa.

Stephen King said in an interview about his money that he pays 23% taxes and his question is why isn't he paying 50% because a person who makes the amount he makes should.

Not everyone with money is a villain and almost all of our leaders have become millionaires.

[OKNancy]

7. Bill Curry - Nadarite

and someone who wrote we should abandon the Democratic party.
He's one of these writers who sits in judgment but has no idea how real electoral politics works.

But, we shall see who is right in about 18 months... and who has the last laugh.

[cali]

10. you do realize he spent years in electoral politics, right?

[OKNancy]

12. yes, won a state senate seat, then lost

and was a loser twice for governor...

[cali]

9. OK, Salon hates Hillary, but how about the points made?

I don't get her campaign roll out at all. It just reinforces the meme that she's bad/afraid of/ interacting with the public. A film and tweet while jetting to Iowa? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[OKNancy]

15. from what I have read...

They don't want a big speech because
1. it makes her look like "Queen Hillary".
2. Iowa voters want an up close and personal interaction. The first few weeks are all about Iowa.
3. There is plenty of time for big rallies and speeches.

[Arkana]

47. She's running an Iowa campaign because that's how she lost the race last time.

She failed to run an Iowa-style campaign and allowed Barack Obama to get a foothold.

[Scuba]

11. It's critical that she be seen as sincere. If she can fake that, she's got it made.

[Fearless]

18. Nothing is worse than faked sincerity though.

[cilla4progress]

28. I see what you did there.

[hedgehog]

13. I'm hearing all about how she is running this campaign differently

or the same; not what she's going to do for my kids and me.All children having her grand-daughter Charlotte's opportunities? Pfffft -
They don't need to be in the 1% -
I'd be glad if they all had jobs and the student loans went away!

[monmouth4]

16. I'm not sure her announcement of her candidacy via video is the best way to go but wth do I know..nt

[Fearless]

17. I agree. She doesn't get the average American

[Persondem]

23. Because you have spent many hours talking one on one with her

learning about what she knows or doesn't know? You have no idea. You just know what you read and see about her via whatever media you get your news/info from. Point is that the info you have has come through a filter ... sometimes more than one. If you are reading negative info them you will have a negative opinion.

[Fearless]

37. Because she had shown herself to be out of touch.

[Persondem]

54. Riiiiight, because you say so it must be so.

A left wing echo chamber is only slightly better than a right wing echo chamber.

[leveymg]

30. The aura of natural populism - that was her husband's greatest strength.

Too bad she isn't the natural politician he is. No populist touch. She can't even fake it. George Bush, Sr. had the same problem.

[DCBob]

19. I think low key launch is fine.

There is plenty of time to ramp it up.

[hollowdweller]

20. I want to hear what she stands for

I think unlike Obama who sort of was very vague I would like to see Hillary be more like Bill, and come out for some specifics.

I'm not defeatist about her chances yet. I want to hear what she has to say.

[DFW]

21. Though a HRC candidacy and even presidency doesn't phase me, I don't like this

I agree--if you are going to announce for the presidency, do it in front of live people and live cameras. Obama did it, You would think she might remember how well it worked.

I don't agree that it's going to sink her plans, but I would have done it differently. Of course, I'm not running for the presidency, so it's not my call, and I have no consequences to suffer, if, indeed, there are any.

[Persondem]

22. Because in part of a video they haven't seen yet means HRC is running a losing campaign?

And that's the only point they have. Lightweight article. Lightweight crystal ball reporting.

How about we wait to see the whole video and get through the day on Monday before we judge what kind of rollout she has?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. For me

She basically was the runner up in the last election as Democratic primary voters were fairly evenly split between her and Barack Obama (just about any Democrat could have won handily in 2008) and now that he has served his two terms, she apparently wants another crack at it and, assuming that most Democrats still want her, she will likely get that opportunity and I will likely support her as the best chance we have of holding the WH post-President Obama I think that, by this point, Hillary is well-known and has proven herself up to the job and people either like her or dislike her and will vote accordingly. There is likely not much more she can do to change people's perception of her at this point. I also would expect that, if elected, she would largely continue/extend President Obama's policies, which I mostly support.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. The author

Bill Curry was White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic (losing) nominee for governor of Connecticut. He is at work on a book on President Obama and the politics of populism.

Taking political advice on how to build a winning candidate from him is akin to taking advice from Sam Hinkie on how to build a winning basketball team.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. I will be proud to vote for the first WOMAN president, US is way behind on gender and leadership

[leveymg]

29. If she used some of her own political capital to support Obama's Iran talks, but that isn't in her.

Her greatest weakness among democrats is that they don't trust her to keep the peace. The others just don't trust her.

See, most Americans agree on something.

[CentralMass]

32. I dont think i'll ever pontificate on or sing the praises of a political candidate or slam another

for that matter again. I've lost the passion.

However regarding acts of pomposity during presidential campaigns I can recall during the Presidents primary campaign he had a foreign policy speech in Germany in front of Victory Column Monument. He traveled with a massive entourage etc..
It seemed a bit much and a bit presumptuous to me.

So who the hell knows what sells and what doesn't. I know I sure as hell don't.

I supported Hillary in 2008.
I support no one at this point. I think the "entrance fee" to get into the game comes with too much baggage.
I am interested to see how she walks the line between appeasing her corporate backers and trying to appeal to the unwashed masses.
How much smoke and mirrors will we see ? Will we see any real commitment to campaigning on change that will reverse the rapid decline if the middle class ? I doubt it, but a least the process has begun.

[quadrature]

34. what does she talk about?

Pres. Obama's theme was 'Bush sucks'.

Is that still good enough?

what does she talk about?
pantsuits
being a grandma
being a multilillionaire

[musicblind]

42. She talks about continuing the policies of Obama.

Good, solid polices that have truly helped this nation out of a recession and unnecessary war.

[AtomicKitten]

35. #FACEPLANT2

[NYC Liberal]

36. That article is so full of shit, I don't even know where to start.

Needing desperately to connect with the broader public, she opts for the virtual reality of a pre-taped video delivered via social media.

Aka, a campaign ad. Something that every single candidate will run. Or should all campaign ads be shot and aired live?

They say listening to real people talk about real stuff will make her seem more real. This too may be a good idea, but it made more sense when she was a rookie candidate seeking a lesser office in a state she barely knew. Running for president is different. So are the times. Voters are more desperate now, and in a far worse mood. If you invite their questions, you’d better have some answers. I’ll return to this point shortly.

The author first claimed she needs to "get outdoors" and "connect with the broader public"; in this very next paragraph, he claims doing exactly that is the wrong move.

It gets worse from there.

[joshcryer]

39. Well Bill Curry looks like an idiot after today.

[DefenseLawyer]

43. She's a bad campaigner

doesn't mean she would be a bad President, but she's terrible on the stump. Rather than defend her to the death and attack anyone that points out the obvious, it might be a good idea to try and help her and her team fix the problem. The first step is always to admit you have a problem.

[meadow]

55. Hilary

I think she will be a fine president

not because she's a woman

but because she will be a protector

of those not at war


What we do need is someone who doesn't want war


let's hope

[DefenseLawyer]

56. She doesn't really have a great record in that area

She has never run as an "anti-war" candidate. No reason to think she will start now.

[Dan]

58. So my question is

what GOP candidate do they prefer?