WaPo: Clinton’s hands-off policy toward Sanders is a long bet — with risks

[portlander23]

Clinton’s hands-off policy toward Sanders is a long bet — with risks

Hillary Rodham Clinton told a longtime supporter and donor recently that she understands her friends are frustrated and worried by her slide in the polls. But the solution, she said, is not to attack the challenger who is surging as she slumps.

“I am not going to start to take shots at Bernie Sanders,” Clinton said, according to a person familiar with the exchange.

But her reticence is sowing unease among some backers, who argue she should confront the Sanders threat more directly. One backer, who asked not to be named in order to speak more freely, said Clinton risks looking overconfident or oblivious to the challenge Sanders poses.

“Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama, for many reasons,” the backer said. “Still, a lot of us remember what it looked like last time,” a reference to Clinton’s 2008 run for the nomination.

Clinton is not ignoring Sanders completely. Last week, for example, she broke her long silence on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline — siding with Sanders against it. And she has been running hard against him for months in behind-the-scenes contests for campaign cash and Democratic delegates.

Clinton has not given a green light for supporters or surrogates to turn negative against Sanders, several people familiar with campaign outreach to backers said. Some Clinton backers have nonetheless quietly begun suggesting that Sanders is too liberal and his ideas too expensive and unworkable. A version of that argument is the crux of the comparison Clinton will eventually make herself, several supporters said.

Opposition research also surfaced this month from a super PAC that linked Sanders to the “extreme” views of Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of Britain’s Labour Party.

Clinton’s campaign has worked closely with the super PAC, called Correct the Record.

Rather than hitting back at Clinton, Sanders sent a fundraising solicitation to his supporters telling them that he had been “pretty viciously” attacked. Within 48 hours, Sanders had raised more than $1.2 million through the solicitation, the campaign said.

Sanders also said he takes Clinton at her word that she has no plans to attack him.

“Well, I certainly do, and I hope that will be the case,” he said, adding: “One of the reasons our campaign is doing well is we are focusing on the real issues that impact the middle class and working families of this country.”

Related:

Bernie Sanders’ Refusal To Attack Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Principled—It’s Political Genius

Hillary Clinton Has 'No Interest' In Running Negative Ads Against Bernie Sanders

Video: Mrs. Clinton wouldn't have said the dishonest Sanders smear her Super PAC said on her behalf

WOW !!! - 'Bernie Sanders Raises $1.2 Million Off Of Attack By Clinton-Allied Group' - HuffPo

[jkbRN]

1. Imagine if she did try to criticize sanders--

Her past views/votes/or lack there of would take her down in a flash.

Not to mention the fundraising sanders will do off of it, and the empowerment it will instill among his voters to create a better and stronger campaign than she could ever dream of.

[jfern]

2. I assume they mean personally attack

Rather than have her campaign pay surrogates to attack, or have her SuperPAC attack. Which is what you do if you want to appear to take the high road while running a negative campaign.

[HooptieWagon]

5. True. She keeps her white gloves clean.

She has her surrogates do the dirty work.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. As she did in 2008

[djean111]

3. Her buddies and super pacs do that for her, so BFD.

All negative attacks will be assumed to be from Hillary. That's the way it rolls.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. She may not have much of a choice.

She has spent so much time and effort casting herself as the victim that if she is seen as the attacker she is sunk.


Hopefully this means that we will have an issues based primary campaign and no matter who wins that is a plus.

[vadermike]

6. great but

what about our lack of debates and the repubs have many? hasnt that destroyed our chances for 16 mostly becasue they will have gotten their message out there alot more than us???? how do we fix that ? no matter who our nominee is? is it too late? i am worried that the GOP may have already won... because of this debate cluster!!!! i hope i am wrong!

[cui bono]

7. She doesn't have to ignore him to not attack him.

How about just comparing and contrasting policy positions? That's what a campaign is supposed to be about.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Camp Weathervane doesn't have anything position-wise to campaign on.

Pro-war? Pro-TPP? Pro-fracking and drilling? Pro-Wall St? Pro-Monsanto?
All she's got is "vote for me because its my turn, and I'm a woman".

[Warren DeMontague]

10. If she were to attack him, for starts, she might have to publicly acknowledge his existence.

She doesn't seem to want to do that.