- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The GOP believes that it may have a cakewalk to the White House if Democratic partisans continue sniping at each other. And perhaps they are right, and perhaps not.
Here's the thing: We have one candidate who speaks clearly and plainly about policy issues, how it's not fair for lunchbucket Dems who voted for Reagan, and she does a hell of a job of it.
The other candidate is all about change and hope and the future, and it all sounds exciting but to many, somewhat nebulous.
I suspect, however, that anyone winning the nomination will have to buckle down and get to brass tacks. But the issue is this: when I talk to Clinton supporters, I very often hear sentences beginning with "back in the 90's..." In fact, I heard this today.
Why is this an issue? Historically (OK, since FDR, at least), the Democrats have been about change, while the Republicans are about finding some glorious past which may or may not have ever been. If Democrats elevate someone who instills any sense of "going back", something a Clinton by association will inevitably do, branding becomes a problem. And as Clinton works more and more of her toughness, her experience, her credentialing into her speeches and interviews, her brand blurs more and more.
At what point do we have a problem sealing the deal? I don't know, but this concerns me greatly.
