With One Speech, Hillary Clinton Proved She Is The Perfect Democrat To Beat Trump

[Surya Gayatri]

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy speech showed that she has the one vital attribute that no other candidate has when it comes to facing off against Trump. Hillary Clinton has the battle sharpened gravitas that Democrats will need to puncture the Trump hot air balloon.



In her speech, Clinton was able to characterize Trump as a clueless amateur, “There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal. But it doesn’t work like that in world affairs. Just like being interviewed on the same episode of “60 Minutes” as Putin was, is not the same thing as actually dealing with Putin. So the stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels. We all know the tools Donald Trump brings to the table – bragging, mocking, composing nasty tweets – I’m willing to bet he’s writing a few right now.”

While Bernie Sanders could brawl with Trump, he and the Republican nominee would have contested the election on nearly equal footing. Bernie Sanders is pushing for a political revolution, while Donald Trump is selling the cult of Trump. Neither one of them has ever served in the Executive Branch or has foreign policy experience.

The Sanders campaign and supporters point to the hypothetical national matchup polls, but those results are hypothetical. Bernie Sanders has never faced the Republican attack machine. Republicans were dying to run against Sanders because they knew that they could pull out the playbook used to defeat every Northeastern liberal from Michael Dukakis to John Kerry. Sanders would have been an easy target because of his Democratic Socialism.

Hillary Clinton showed why she is the perfect Democrat to take on Trump in the fall. She has been through the mud and the political wars. She understands how Republicans fight, and most importantly, she knows how to beat them at their own game. Clinton is battle tested, and her foreign policy speech revealed that she has the right combination of experience, skill, and stature to defeat Donald Trump.


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/02/speech-hillary-clinton-proved-perfect-democrat-beat-trump.html

______________________________

Excellent read. Valid analysis.

[auntpurl]

1. K&R!

[CrowCityDem]

2. They've been running for a year, and that one speech was a harder attack than anything Bern's said.

[Surya Gayatri]

3. Not one of them, nor Bernie, laid a glove on him.

Hillary jumps in the ring and it's a KO in the first round.

[Sivart]

7. KO? What happened?

Did Sanders and Trump both concede and/or suspend?

What knock out?

[samson212]

4. This is purely an opinion piece. No facts.

This article is chock full of talking points, but doesn't attempt to prove any of the claims made. Worse, a lot of the points made are demonstrably false.

Bernie and Trump "would have contested the election on nearly equal footing" -- what does this even mean? Is the point here that both candidates are outsiders? In a year where voters are looking for an outsider, isn't this really a disadvantage to Hillary?

"Sanders would have been an easy target because of his Democratic Socialism." -- what the Republicans (and, apparently, the DNC) don't know (or are ignoring, in the hopes that the echo chamber will do their work for them) is that the electorate is primed for a Democratic Socialist. "Socialist" used to be a death knell for a Democratic candidate, but that's not the case anymore.

"Neither one of them has ever served in the Executive Branch or has foreign policy experience." -- It's misleading to say Trump and Sanders have comparable experience; Sanders has been in government for decades. He's even had executive experience, as a Mayor. Granted, the scale is different, but it's disingenuous to say that he has no experience as a head of government. I'll concede that he doesn't have foreign policy experience. Much like many of our past presidents (i.e. Obama). What he does have is a verifiable record of being on the right side of these issues (i.e. the Iraq War). Unlike both Trump and Hillary.

"She understands how Republicans fight, and most importantly, she knows how to beat them at their own game." -- the problem is that she will be playing the same game! Bernie is playing a different game, one that the Republicans can't win!

"Clinton is battle tested" -- I keep hearing this one. What are you referring to? The fact that the Republicans have been slamming Clinton for decades? Isn't that a disadvantage? Isn't that apparent in her historically low (and falling) unfavorability numbers? Also, when has Clinton been "tested"? What campaigns has she won against Republicans? As far as I know, the only elected position she's won is Senator of NY, where she essentially ran unopposed.

The writing is on the wall here. Hillary Clinton is a historically bad candidate, running against a candidate who has broken all predictions. When one says "The Sanders campaign and supporters point to the hypothetical national matchup polls, but those results are hypothetical," one ignores actual facts. The very same kind of facts that the punditry previously ignored, leading them to announce with authority that Trump would never win the nomination, and the Bernie would never win a state. You may argue that those polls don't reflect future events, but they do reflect current sentiments, and they unequivocally demonstrate that Hillary faces a tough battle.

What will be the argument that Hillary uses against Trump? I agree with her points here, but what makes you think they'll affect Trump supporters? Won't they just keep seeing her as a lying establishment candidate? Whereas, there is ample evidence that a lot of independents would vote for Bernie before they'll vote for Hillary. That would make a big dent in Trump's numbers.

Just saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Hillary is demonstrably a flawed candidate. There is evidence that she will have a tough time beating Trump. These statements are based on facts. Saying "ignore the facts, look how good I think she sounds, she'll win for sure" is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. Thanks for the kick.

[samson212]

13. No problem, I enjoy a discourse.

You don't seem to, though.

Posts like this should be promoted as much as possible, so that people can see what kinds of talking points are being promulgated, and have an opportunity to refute them. Since you didn't respond to my reply, I'll assume you aren't interested in any kind of reasoned debate.

[HumanityExperiment]

6. ...raises hand...

I have some questions....

"And if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety – and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.
That is not an outcome we can live with."

She will continue the current wars and promote the US 'policing' the rest of the world...



"Third, we need to embrace all the tools of American power, especially diplomacy and development, to be on the frontlines solving problems before they threaten us at home." ... "Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as I’ve said many times before, our approach must be “distrust and verify.” The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In particular, Israel’s security is non-negotiable. They’re our closest ally in the region, and we have a moral obligation to defend them."

When did the US need to become more imperialistic? when did this become a progressive / liberal position?



"Fifth, we need a real plan for confronting terrorists. As we saw six months ago in San Bernardino, the threat is real and urgent. Over the past year, I’ve laid out my plans for defeating ISIS.
We need to take out their strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign and stepping up our support for Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground."

Now she's throwing Obama under the bus? 'we need a real plan for confronting terrorists'? Obama doesn't have a real plan being acted upon currently?



"And one more thing. A President has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy. Our troops give their all. They deserve a commander-in-chief who knows that."

Where does Libya fall into the category of 'well thought out'?

[Surya Gayatri]

8. Thanks for the kick!

[HumanityExperiment]

9. ahh you're one of 'those'...

[Surya Gayatri]

10. A Hillary supporter? You bet'cha!

[HumanityExperiment]

11. not that...

different category

Have a day!

[ecstatic]

12. I was very pleasantly surprised... and now I'm realizing that she's at her best

when battling rethugs. The "laughing" audience was brilliant. Everything worked. She's awful when in "primary mode," and now I think I understand why: She really doesn't want to weaken the party. Whereas Mr. Sanders is self centered and OK with blowing the whole thing up.

[Surya Gayatri]

14. You nailed it, I think. She's a bit stilted when primary campaigning. And, it may well

be because she's uncomfortable ripping on other Democrats.

She knows who the real enemy is--as opposed to Bernie, who seems a bit confused about that.

[geek tragedy]

16. primary brings out her cautious side, which makes her seem less 'authentic'

when she goes against Trump, she'll be a lot more decisive and bold, which will make her seem more 'authentic'

[JoePhilly]

17. + 1

[Maru Kitteh]

15. K & R