Clinton Campaign Goes on Tilt as a Result of Dead Heat With Sanders in Iowa

[ErisDiscordia]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/clinton-campaign-goes-on-tilt-as-a-result-of-dead-heat-with-sanders-in-iowa.html

The New York Times, despite its fealty to the Clinton camp, caught its operatives at a vulnerable moment as the Iowa caucus results rolled in. And the picture that emerges is consistent with that of Hillary herself: elitist, out of touch with the needs of actual voters and presumptuous about what it ought to take to win them over.

The story, Hillary Clinton Campaign, Unnerved by Iowa, Braces for New Hampshire, at points reads like self-parody. And you can see similarly rattled nerves elsewhere. Brookings, which likes to depict itself as detached, had as its lead story in its AM email, “How Hillary Can Move Past Iowa,” with the subhead, “After Iowa, Hillary should take advice from the “West Wing” and skip New Hampshire.” Sounds a tad desperate, no?

We’ll go through the New York Times story in detail. The opening paragraphs depict Clinton staff and supporters expecting a comfortable win of several percentage points and Clinton having prepared only a victory speech that focused on Republicans. As the results streamed in, the mood darkened:

The outcome in Iowa — which at least until Tuesday afternoon appeared to be effectively a tie with a far left senator from a small New England state — dealt a jolting psychological blow to the Clinton campaign, leaving volunteers, donors and aides confused throughout the night, and then crestfallen. They had hoped that the former secretary of state would garner a decisive victory here and put to rest any doubts about her strength as a candidate.

You can see the Clinton blind spots on display. The “former secretary of state” isn’t merely elegant variation in drafting. The Clinton machine has been unwilling to see Sanders as more than an upstart, even as his gains in polling have been showing otherwise. They are invested in the SS Clinton: Hillary as national, indeed international figure for over two decades, versus Sanders as a pol from a the frosty hinterlands. And “far left” translates into “unsound” and “unable to get big corporate backing.”

more

[cantbeserious]

1. HRC - Strident - Overbearing - Visionless - The Perfect Spokesperson For The 1%

eom

[peacebird]

2. This latest version of Hillary - shouting "never ever" - looks and sounds less presidential

Trying to get the enthusiasm Sanders gets by turning up her volume? It appears rather desperate.

[libdem4life]

4. It's because it doesn't from Fire in the Belly. n/t

[ladjf]

10. “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” Victor Huga nt

[Baitball Blogger]

5. I think the Clintons are smart enough to understand that they are on the negative side of

history. Imagine how Bill must have felt standing behind Hillary in Iowa, realizing that she barely squeaked by in a state that is purported to be Liberal and white. These are the kind of people that he most feels a bond to, and they rejected them. They have now become the evil that he once fought against when they were young. Worst, today's youth have passed judgment on him and his policies, and they have found them lacking.

That just can't feel good to a man who is in the time of life where his legacy matters.

[peacebird]

6. Well put.

[stillwaiting]

9. The thing is Bill and Hillary BOTH know that the policies they espouse don't help average Americans.

They aren't stupid.

So, they tell people their policies will help them while knowing they don't. I really don't see any other explanation. This is my opinion on the matter.

The neo-liberal approach that the Democratic Party has embraced over the past few decades has not helped average Americans financially. The wealth and income gap accelerated even when Democrats had full control of government.

I'm glad that more and more people are waking up and rejecting their neo-liberal bullshit. If it pains them that their bullshit is no longer selling as well as it once did, then I'm glad.

They do have the Establishment fully in their corner though so I'm sure that's somewhat comforting to them. For now.

[FlatBaroque]

3. At the NYTimes

left of center is reflexively "far left". So glad I no longer, ever, read the NYTimes.

[ElliotCarver]

7. I'm 2 weeks out from canceling my NYT subscription

and still choking on the fumes of bullshit.

Good riddance and goodbye, Krugman & co

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Great piece "I will keep doing what I have done my entire life,” she said in her non-victory speech

Look

snip>
Speaking on CNN as it got late, David Axelrod, President Obama’s former campaign manager, made an acute point. One of Hillary’s problems is that her campaign is largely about her—her experience, her electability, and her toughness. “I will keep doing what I have done my entire life,” she said in her non-victory speech. “I will keep standing up for you. I will keep fighting for you.” Sanders, on the other hand, rarely mentions himself in his speeches. His campaign is all about his message of taking America back from the billionaires. And, as Axelrod pointed out, it is often easier to inspire people, particularly young people, with an uplifting theme than with a résumé

And that resume, despite having lots of glitzy titles on it, has either no or negative accomplishment associated with these roles. Plus it’s hard to buy the notion that she will “keep standing up” for anyone other than her monied backers. And she’s not likeable. She projects as hard and cold. Sanders is not warm and fuzzy, but he’s at least sincere, so he beats Hillary in that category, save for voters who come from a social strata that predisposes them towards technocratic sheen.<snip>

<snip>

Former President Clinton had been among those who have attributed his wife’s poor performance more to her campaign’s muddled strategy and lack of a clear message than to Mrs. Clinton’s own failings.

This is nonsense. The problems with Hillary’s branding are very much problems with Bill’s branding: that of having implemented pro-finance, pro-multinational policies that (with the help of the Internet tail wind) produced the economic equivalent of a sugar high and left the middle class with a case of diabetes. The “muddled messaging” results from Sanders having dented the inevitability myth, forcing Hillary to get out of tissue paper and out in the open, and discuss policy positions, where her barmy claim that she wants to be a President for everyone is not holding up to the light of day. The increased awareness of income inequality, a point Sanders pounds relentlessly, means you can’t credibly be a candidate for the 1%, particularly the 0.1%, and everyone else.
<snip>

[ladjf]

11. Sec. Clinton is a moderately good "cheerleader".

But, as a creative visionary, she is a "dull knife".

[libdem4life]

12. Succinctly put.