In a piece yesterday entitled “The Worrying Vacuity of Hillary Clinton,” Andrew Sullivan wrote this:
I’d like to find a reason to believe she’s a political force who stands for something in an era when there is a real appetite for serious change. She could, after all, decide to campaign vociferously in favor of the ACA this summer and fall (universal healthcare is, after all, one of her positions), but that might siphon money away from her foundation and candidacy. She could get out there and start framing a foreign policy vision. But, again, too risky. I see nothing that suggests a real passion for getting on with the fight – just the usual presumptions of a super-elite, super-rich and super-cocooned politician of the gilded age.
Okay, kind of harsh. But here’s the thing. In 2008, Hillary Clinton ran a front-runner’s campaign, saying as little as possible and therefore almost ensuring that her campaign would lose steam when it needed it most.
Could she do it again? Could she shy away from a strong and powerful message again because she wanted to try to keep everyone happy? I don’t know or care who gets credit for coining the phrase “if you try to please everyone, you’ll please no one.” I know it’s not me, but that could be the problem here.