Hillary Clinton’s Crucible - NYT

[WillyT]

Hillary Clinton’s Crucible
Charles M. Blow - NYT
JAN. 28, 2016

Then there is the strange reality that the ritual of her fighting her way back, even with strong showings like Monday’s, can take on air of disingenuousness in and of itself.

The cynical read is that these command performances are calculated, the maneuvering of a purely political being with a gift for guile.

That assessment isn’t particularly fair, but it is quite real. I believe it happens in part because there can be an animatronic plasticity present in her comportment and conveyance that raises questions of ambition versus authenticity. She is hands down the most broadly qualified and experienced among the candidates. But there remains an intangible quality that eludes her: connectivity. Even many people who admire her simply don’t trust her.

This is the same problem that, to varying degrees, Mitt Romney, Al Gore and Bob Dole had. It’s not fixable. Indeed, attempts to fix it feel even more forced and phony.

And...

Then there is Clinton’s mounting younger-voter problem.

According to a USA TODAY/Rock the Vote poll conducted this month, Sanders leads Clinton among millennial Democrats and independents (those age 18 to 34) 46 percent to 35 percent. Among millennial Democratic and independent women, Sanders’s lead in the poll was even greater: 50 percent to Clinton’s 31 percent. Sanders’s strength, and Clinton’s weakness, is mostly driven by the youngest millennials. According to the paper:

“Among both genders, Sanders has 57 percent backing in the 18-25 age group, according to the USA Today/Rock the Vote poll. That drops to 36 percent for those ages 26-34. For Clinton, the opposite is true. She gets 44 percent of those ages 26 to 34 and 25 percent of those 18-25.”

Sanders has become the cool uncle and Clinton has become the cold aunt.

Although many of Sanders’s plans appear on their face to be unworkable and, if they were workable, would cause a massive, possibly unprecedented, expansion of government in this country, I don’t think young people think about it that way. I believe that many of them see Sanders as someone committed to dismantling a broken system and its component broken institutions — financial, political and educational.

Millennials are notoriously distrusting of institutions. Sanders is anti-institution. The Clintons are an institution.

The Rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/opinion/campaign-stops/hillary-clintons-crucible.html

[NCTraveler]

1. From the link in the op.

Even so, Hillary Clinton stood out.

Not only did she seem completely at ease in this environment, but she was also confident and wide-ranging in her answers, delivering many in an assertive tone that was one tick below yelling, and displaying a depth and breadth of knowledge that few can match.

She was at the top of her game.

[Betty Karlson]

2. Then her game is not good enough, because we still distrust her. eom

[NCTraveler]

3. Fully understand your feelings. You have made them very clear.

Glad I'm not a part of "we." I look forward to progressing with Clinton at the helm. Feeling very confident. Best of luck to you.

[ljm2002]

4. "Glad I'm not a part of "we"."

Although you clearly mean you are not part of the "we" that is Sanders supporters... actually you state Clinton's problem quite neatly. Listen to her campaign rhetoric, watch her campaign videos. Observe how often she uses the word "I" vs. "we". She is not interested in any movements, she is very happy to be part of the ruling elite, and she knows what's good for us even if we don't.

I do not say this as a personal slam. I don't think she means to come off that way, and I do believe she is sincere in wanting to help people -- to a certain extent. On social issues, she is of course so much better than any Republican that that, in itself, would be enough reason to vote for her if she is our GE candidate.

She really does not come off as part of "we", though, she just doesn't. She is not a natural campaigner. She has done extremely well for someone with that deficit, but it is starting to wear into her support in this campaign just as it did last time.

[NCTraveler]

6. I'm simply not seeing what you are.

It was pretty clear what I meant about "we" and you simply took it out of context and ran with it. Comically I might add.

I feel very confident in her abilities as a campaigner.

How many states is she currently holding leads in polls?
How far ahead is she nationally?

All signs are pointing to a very decisive victory for her. What does that say about Sanders if Clinton simply isn't good at this as you claim. He is the only career politician running on our side. You would think, if Clinton is as bad as you say, that Sanders would at least be able to claim hope outside of two or three states.

[ljm2002]

7. Yes it was clear what you meant by "we"...

...and I did not mean to imply that you meant something else. I will edit my post to make that clear.

However, it did make me think of her campaigning style. I did not say she's "bad" at it -- I said she is not a natural. I also acknowledge that she has done very well, given that deficit. I'm hardly the first person to make the observation that she is not a natural campaigner like, say, her husband was.

As for your other comments, talk about comical. You think that Sanders has gotten this far by being a lousy campaigner? Dream on.

Well we're all at each other's throats these days, but in a few days now we will at least have some tangible results to look at and argue about.

[NCTraveler]

8. "You think that Sanders has gotten this far by being a lousy campaigner? "

I never said any such thing. I was using your own metric.

"Well we're all at each other's throats these days"

I actually think you were pretty respectable in your reply.

[m-lekktor]

5. "She is hands down the most broadly qualified and experienced among the candidate'"

*gag* That comment made me stop reading. I will get back to it later perhaps but that comment stopped me cold.