Hillary and Bernie: the credibility gap

[Nanjeanne]

Long - but very insightful article by Robert Borosage, who is the founder of Institute for America's Future and co-director of its sister organization, Campaign for America's Future.

Just a few nuggets - but read the whole thing.

But the question isn’t what’s wrong with Bernie — he’s soaring beyond all expectations. The question is what’s wrong with Hillary?

She has universal name recognition, unparalleled experience, the support of the big money and the political gatekeepers, the Hollywood glitz, the best political operatives, the pollsters, the ad makers, the establishment policy mavens, and political press coverage. Having learned from 2008, she’s got the best ground operation in the history of Iowa caucuses that still may rescue her there. But she’s sinking rapidly against a 73-year-old political maverick who is still just introducing himself to the American people.

. . .

What is plaguing the Clinton campaign are less the sins of the past than the strategic choices of the present— particularly her decision to be the candidate of big money.

From its start, the Clinton campaign has boasted about its unparalleled fundraising capacity. HRC geared up a bevy of SuperPacs and C4s to take big donations and dark money. She launched a relentless operation to get wealthy donors to max out both for the primary and the general. Her ability to raise money helped scare away other potential contenders. Her continued commitment to this path is symbolized by the $33,400-a-plate dinner Warren Buffet is hosting for her in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. People who can afford $33,400 for one seat at the table aren’t exactly the working people Hillary claims to champion.

. . .

The result is corrosive. When Clinton insists that her Wall Street reforms are far tougher than those of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, it rings false.

. . .

As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post notes, Hillary’s credibility gulf also undermines her argument about “electability”. Democrats have a natural majority among the electorate, but only if they turn out. Even the Clinton campaign has been worried about whether HRC can generate the excitement among the rising American electorate to get them to the polls. Now, they worry about whether Sanders will generate so much excitement that he will flood the Iowa caucuses and primaries with a wave of new voters.

Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate who has assembled a strong campaign. She will remain formidable even if Sanders exceeds expectations by doing well in Iowa and winning in New Hampshire. The panic among her supporters is both unseemly and excessive. Claire McCaskill and the rest of the hit squad would be well advised to listen to the advice Campaign Chair John Podesta offered to David Brock, head of one of the Clinton Super PACs, and “chill out”. Clinton’s difficulties stem not from the attacks of Sanders — the most courtly of opponents — but from her own revealing choices.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/robert-borosage/hillary-and-bernie-credibility-gap

[Divernan]

1. HRC remains, as always, her own worst enemy.

More snippets from link:

Clinton’s difficulties stem not from the attacks of Sanders — the most courtly of opponents — but from her own revealing choices.

Already the inevitable Clinton circular firing squad has begun firing its salvos: We should have gone negative on Bernie earlier. We should have used Bill more… or less. We shouldn’t have bet the house on the first four primaries. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Clinton's difficulties don't stem from Sanders' attacks, but are rather a result of her own revealing choices. Has Clinton "unilaterally disarmed" herself?

[beam me up scottie]

2. "The panic among her supporters is both unseemly and excessive."

Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate who has assembled a strong campaign. She will remain formidable even if Sanders exceeds expectations by doing well in Iowa and winning in New Hampshire. The panic among her supporters is both unseemly and excessive. Claire McCaskill and the rest of the hit squad would be well advised to listen to the advice Campaign Chair John Podesta offered to David Brock, head of one of the Clinton Super PACs, and “chill out”. Clinton’s difficulties stem not from the attacks of Sanders — the most courtly of opponents — but from her own revealing choices.

Very good read, thank you for posting.

[DLnyc]

3. Interesting, but when will the media ask "What's right with Bernie?"

What is going on is that people are responding in a very concrete and enthusiastic way to the things Bernie Sanders is saying. This is not mostly due to some fuck-up on Hillary's part; it is mostly connected to what Bernie is saying and how people feel about that!

When a candidate is drawing very large and very enthusiastic crowds, when that candidate's poll numbers improve steadily as people get to know him, the interesting question is "What is that candidate doing right?", not "How did that candidate's opponent fuck up?"

Unless, of course, you see the campaign as a piece of cheerleading designed to raise the public's approval of the established order, rather than seeing it as any kind of exercise of actual democracy!