Back in the early ’90s, I remember the pundits remarking on Bill Clinton’s most salient tactic: taking an issue owned by his opponents and making it his own. Hillary’s ripped that page right out of Bill’s book and taped it to her iPad, judging from Steve Benen’s remarks on MaddowBlog:
In her address, Mrs. Clinton championed the notion of American exceptionalism, a term that has traditionally been embraced by Republicans.
It’s hard to overstate just how eager Clinton was today to drive the point home. When her campaign distributed a transcript of her speech to reporters this afternoon, the headline read, “In Cincinnati, Clinton Touts American Exceptionalism.” A quick review of the transcript found that the Democratic presidential hopeful used the word “exceptional” eight times while speaking to the American Legion.
This was arguably the most striking: “[M]y opponent in the race has said very clearly that he thinks American exceptionalism is insulting to the rest of the world. In fact, when Vladimir Putin, of all people, criticized American exceptionalism, my opponent agreed with him saying, and I quote, ‘If you are in Russia, you don’t want to hear that America is exceptional.’ Well maybe you don’t want to hear it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.”
Of course, that raises the question of why did Clinton lose to Obama in the primary 8 years ago? While I don’t have any clear memories of the primaries, I suspect this Clinton tactic works best with opponents who view issues as convenient ladders to power, who don’t really have a solid grip on them. Obama has demonstrated his commitment to the issues, from the ACA to ISIL, has thought through the issues to the extent possible, and plays the long, long game – a difficult proposition even for the brightest, and especially for businessmen who think quarter to quarter.
I think we have yet to see Hillary demonstrate that same commitment to the long game, but I don’t think that means she can’t. By all accounts she’s driven, smart, and very experienced. If she is, Obama should serve as one of her most important, if unofficial, advisors.
In some ways, I wonder if the GOP just decided to throw a sacrificial lamb to the wolf this time around. It’s hard to justify that statement in view of those initial 17 candidates, but I can still see it happening.
