nimh said
Quote:It's just mystifying that the idea wasnt shot down in time by a more level-headed mind in the campaign.
My guess, worth the little that it's worth, is that the speed of things is increasing rapidly now and this sort of mistake is likely to become more common. Nimh and I agree that Clinton's campaign was appropriately addressing Barack's line of attack/criticism on "long planning for presidency". But they clearly didn't predict how this would land in the media. Everybody, msnbc, fox, cnn, etc ...
everybody jumped on this immediately with hobnail boots. Why? Because it so perfectly matches the narrative that has been established about Hillary. The campaign is very aware of this but, again, I think the perceived need to move quickly against any attack/criticism forces a decreased planning/vetting of PR statements. I sympathize. The narrative established about Hillary is as pervasive a mine-field as I can think of in the political world.
The David Corn piece that nimh posted on the other thread is more troubling to me. Corn said there
Quote:Clinton is playing with fire.
And that's an appropriate metaphor.
The "whatever it takes" approach has allowed the new conservative movement to gain the power it has gained over the last thirty years or so and it is naive to think they will soon change. As a consequence, the left simply has to join the fight in the manner it has evolved in order to compete.
The conundrum is that they must, somehow, do it differently. Where the left lies or where they slime (using falsehoods and unjustified innuendo) or where they bully, they will deservedly lose the goodwill and trust and communitarian ethos which would differentiate them from what has gone before. That will hurt in elections and it will hurt after any election is won and where support of activists and the electorate is needed.
It is a hell of a problem.
(nimh, thanks for the hat tip, by the way)