Clinton needs to fear attacks on her marriage from twice divorced, now married to young enough to be his daughter Trump?
Not saying it’s logical, but they (her campaign) are preparing for it. Probably because, like most stuff Donald lobs out during debates, he’ll be looking to rile her or cause an emotional response from her. To get under her skin. A properly prepared response from her could garner sympathy. But an off-the-cuff emotional response could hurt. She doesn’t want to throw Bill under the bus, she also doesn’t want to appear too “victim-y,” but still needs to balance it to deflect any of the illogical blame the Trump people put on her. This is something many, many households have had to deal with; if she can give the right response, it’s a completely identifiable situation she went through.
Her mock debates ahead of the actual debates are likely to be unlike anything ever done. I would wager most of the stuff they’ll be preparing her for won’t be policy-oriented, but rather personal (and even professional) attacks.
I heard on CNN this morning a Clinton PAC is pulling its ads from some swing states like Virginia and moving the money into states like Georgia and Arizona where they now think they can win.
To be clear, this is a PAC, not the actual Clinton campaign.
Yes. This is the oldest play in the political playbook; act as if your opponent’s strength is their weakness.
In the 2004 election the Bush camp successfully made an issue out of whether John Kerry’s war service was really heroic or just merely moderately heroic. Kerry was the combat-decorated veteran, Bush the rich kid who got out of Vietnam with a cushy appointment to the National Guard, and yet they made it about Kerry’s service.
Likewise the Obama campaign very effectively attacking Romney’s much-touted business background in 2012.
Another good billboard: https://localtvwjw.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/billboard.jpeg?quality=85&strip=all&strip=all
As I read it (assuming we’re discussing the same), they’ve canceled ads between 9/1-9/20 to use the resources elsewhere but will resume advertising in VA and CO in late September. Which sounds more reasonable than just saying “We won VA, let’s ignore it until election day” and will give them a feel for how well other states are responding.
Just thinking out loud but wouldn’t Al Franken be a great Trump stand in for Clinton in debate practice? He’d be great at making up possible Trump attacks. And smart and funny rebuttals.
Not a bad idea. Jon Stewart can channel him pretty well, too.
Here’s an interesting CNN historical perspective on presidential landslides, and why Trump just might find himself on the wrong end of one this year: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-landslide-loss/index.html
I read Mark Cuban was interested in doing it. He’d be good too, and wouldn’t have to feel the need to pull punches for political reasons.
Taran Killam is suddenly, surprisingly, available too.
Just have the guy pretending to be Trump read off Breitbart’s comment section or reddit’s /r/The_Donald. While throwing things at her.
Hillary has started naming the members of her transition team.
Trump’s way ahead of her, and his transition committee chairman is yuuuuuge: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-chris-christie-transition-team/
The Clinton campaign has been wooing conservative foreign policy rationalists like Condoleezza Rice, James Baker, George Shultz, and Henry Kissinger. Richard Nixon, though he rarely speak with Kissinger, predicts an endorsement. But the former President doesn’t want us to forget a few things: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] Henry is only as good as his master. And the qualities underlying the stamp of approval Mrs. Clinton wants from him — toughness, realism, taking the long view — aren’t his.
They’re mine. I haven’t kissed ass since Ike was alive, and I don’t owe anything to anybody. Clinton’s people have all but promised me the moon for a nod.
But she won’t get it. I’ve written at length about her foreign policy: how it’s a dumb, dangerous mixture of idealism and shortsighted calculation, how she’s bewitched by generals and thinks it’s America’s place to spread democracy around the world. Do I need to explain the difference to how we conducted ourselves?
In reaching out to Kissinger, Clinton wants to kick me in the ass with my own shoes. She wants an old man on the mountain to pat her on the head and prop her up with the great and good. Henry will do it — in public, anyway. You might say I know him well. [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] Nixon’s twitter feed: https://twitter.com/dick_nixon
Nixon, Like Francisco Franco, continues to be dead.
Thanks to Trump, both realists and neocons have learned to love Clinton:
BTW, the Vox article does a great job of explaining what Clinton’s views on foreign policy actually are. She’s not so much a “hawk” as a big supporter of the status quo, which even before GWB was a pretty muscular foreign policy.
The most stark differences between Clinton and Obama are over the Middle East.
My son was among the 2,000-some who saw Clinton speak at a high school in Cleveland today. He said she was flat and not all that inspiring, but the crowd was fired up anyway.
Aetna’s off course pulled out of the healthcare exchange. Sanders has emerged to use that to promote the public option, which Clinton has already embraced. Obama has called for trying for it again too. (It failed to get enough support in the first place even with a Democratic majority Senate.)
As a political matter should Clinton raise this as one of her main talking points?
As a reality matter would it have a chance in a 50/50 Senate and, let’s guess, a thin GOP majority House?
I think yes to the first and long shot to the second.
That depends on the nature of the public option, although the real issue isn’t Republicans(it would never pass a GOP Congress), but what the conservative Democrats want. A public option must be like the co-ops, it must be 100% paid for by premiums, with no bailout should the public option fail.
I sort of miss seeing you tell us all how people who want a public health insurance system even better than Obamacare are actually opposed to it. Something must have happened. 
She should not say anything that suggests Obamacare is not a good idea or is not working - that only gives ammo to the oppositionists. She *should *talk about how to improve the system - and the easy, obvious way to do it is to phase in expansion of Medicare eligibility. That would be hard to oppose, although the Reps would certainly echo their 1960’s-era “socialized medicine” nonsense.