This morning's New York Times brings an article Economic Plan is a Quandry for Hillary Clinton's Campaign. Reading through it one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. The content and positioning of the article are emblematic of my worst fears regarding this candidate, ie: that she has no core values that she is willing to share, no way of sincerely relating to the former middle class, and is casting about for a "strategy" that in effect makes a nice campaign omelette, but without breaking any eggs.
So she draws together 200 policy experts and in effect goes shopping for an economic message to kick off her campaign. Hit the pause button and ask yourself - what's wrong with this picture? Is this another "listening tour"? Has the hand wringing begun already? What Democrat could have lived through the last seven years in the USA without having at least some convictions about what has gone wrong with economic policy?
One revealing passage says:
Behind many of these proposals is a philosophy, endorsed by Mrs. Clinton’s closest economic advisers and often referred to as inclusive capitalism, that contends that a majority of Americans do not want to punish the rich; they just want to feel that they, too, have a chance to succeed.
"Inclusive Capitalism" - pretty nifty new product line! This is a polished Madison Avenue style attempt to bridge the yawning gap between the corporate Democrats who dominate the party money and the alienated progressive base. It implies that the USA can once again make room for a middle class, but without taking anything at all away from the 1%. Everybody wins, don't worry!
Given the last decade, it may be that people don't buy this win-win campaign rhetoric any longer. That is the core paradox the whole article dances around, but without coming out and saying it.
Can she do it? Can she rally the dispirited middle class democratic base while simultaneously reassuring the corporate side of the party that the status quo will indeed prevail? To me the sad thing about this is that she sees this as her road to get elected, bridging that gap without upsetting anyone's apple cart.
Whether they end up running or not, Warren and Sanders have no trouble breaking through the fog of campaign baloney and articulating a clear message, and they didn't need 200 advisers to do it. This is why people are responding to both of them. Even to people who know nothing about national politics or economic policy, it is obvious that they have the courage of their convictions, whether they agree with them or not.
Contrast that to this: drawing together 200 "experts" to help you figure out your message so that you can kick off your campaign. Warren and Sanders talk to you like they're sitting at their kitchen table. Hillary doesn't do kitchens.