Debate Strategy: Why Hillary Should Not Play The "Crooked Donald" Card

Donald Trump has made allegations against someone he refers to as "Crooked Hillary". I don't really know the details of these allegations. I'm just going to give a general newspaper/website reader's impression of them, which may only be partially accurate. They relate to two areas of Mrs. Clinton's activities.

The first alleges that Mrs. Clinton was operating a "pay to play" scheme when she served as Secretary of State. The allegation is that "face time" with Mrs. Clinton came at a price to certain individuals. That price is alleged to have been paid in "speakers fees" to her or her husband or donations to their charities. It is suggested that a possibility exists that policies of the United States may have been influenced in favor of those who made these payments.

I'm not really up to speed on Mrs. Clinton's response to this allegation except that she has denied adjusting policy to favor the interests of anyone making such payments.

The second allegation against Mrs. Clinton is in reference to the activities of The Clinton Foundation. Funds are alleged to have been mishandled. Contracts are alleged to have been awarded in ways and for projects that were of more than substantial benefit to selected friends of the Clintons and perhaps, indirectly, to the Clintons themselves, and not so beneficial to the advertized intended beneficiaries of the foundation.

These are serious, unproven, allegations.

The beautiful thing about them is that they are so simple to describe and so easy to understand. The general population is thoroughly familiar with this sort of questionable, perhaps illegal, activity. They can be summed up as, "You want something? Grease my palm and you will get it." One also thinks of the classic "boiler room" style charity scams, where 90% of the money raised by a charity goes to pay the operators of the "charity".

Donald Trump would like to paint what the Clintons were doing in those terms and it is easy to do so. On the other hand, defending activities that look so much like classic scams is extremely difficult, as I am sure Mrs. Clinton is going to discover during the debate on the 26th.

There is undoubtedly a world of political complexity that could be invoked by Mrs. Clinton to explain why profiting from "speaker's fees", paid to her husband, when she was Secretary of State, was neither serious nor dangerous to US interests. When it comes to the working of the Clinton's charitable foundations, explanations, even if entirely innocent and pragmatic, are orders of magnitude more complex. Unfortunately, in a debate, with limits on speaking time, making her case in a clear and convincing manner will be a very tall order. Damage control is probably the best that one can expect.

Point for Donald Trump. Maybe touchdown for Donald Trump. With conversion that is seven points.

To use a hunting analogy, bringing Mrs. Clinton down, like a galloping buffalo, in her persona as "Crooked Hillary", might require only one or two well placed shots.

Mrs. Clinton faces a much more formidable task if she tries to attack Mr. Trump on the issue of "corruption". Mr. Trump's "questionable" dealings are very numerous and doing an ethical evaluation of nearly a billion dollars in alleged "loophole/avoidance/incentive money" would be a monumental undertaking in a debate. Throughout the campaign Mr. Trump has sailed on, like a dreadnought of old, under a constant barrage of revelations of suspicious and tricky dealings, which don't embarrass him, and even worse, don't embarrass his supporters.

These revelations are very numerous and that, in itself, is a problem.

Thus Mrs. Clinton's task, returning to the hunting analogy, would be to attempt to bring down a flock of geese with three or four blasts of a shotgun, in the time allotted. I don't think it can be done and I think it would be a grave mistake to attempt it.

There is too much detail in his dealings and Mr. Trump has spent his entire career perfecting the art of losing pursuers in that thicket.

Moving to a cooking analogy, if I were Mrs. Clinton, I would use Mr. Trump's various perceived peccadilloes as a condiment to the main dish. They should be like capers sprinkled around a fillet of salmon, the fillet being his obvious unsuitability, both temperamental and experiential, for the job of president.

In other words, Mrs. Clinton should bring her strength to the fight, her knowledge, her experience, her professionalism and her program, particularly the attitude of inclusion behind it. I think Mr. Trump's strength, his dynamism, his entrepreneurial abilities are not the assets he believes they are. He will attack her because his program is not strong enough on its own to beat her.

I think it would be a tactical mistake for her to attack him on the issue of "crookedness", although I am sure he will use it himself, against her.

Without his aids to tell him exactly what to say, Donald will show his true colors, and make an ass out of himself! He will no doubt have an ear piece underneath that hair

a reply to: kurthall

Believe me. I sincerely hope so.

a reply to: kurthall

I hope Donald Trump hires the speech writers from the Miss America pageant.

Moderator : "Mr.Trump, education is one of the leading issues for parents of Americas children; why do you believe 1/5th American children cannot locate their own country on a map?"

Donald: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as, uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.”

a reply to: ipsedixit

It won't be Easy for Mr. Trump to try and Debate an Insane Person . The American People will Plainly see that in this First Debate , if she is even Capable of Standing at a Podium for 90 Minutes taking Questions without Falling on her Sorry Ass , that Hillary Only Cares about Herself , and Her Over Extended Ego .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

There is no question but that this is a showdown long anticipated.

Both of these people are pretty tough. I don't think there will be either physical or mental breakdown.

a reply to: Atsbhct

I remember that video. She was a cutie and I think she went back on TV to correct the public's impression of her, later.

Hopefully Mr. Trump will have the same opportunity to pick himself up and carry on with his life in reality TV.

a reply to: mekhanics

OMG! I hadn't seen that. Very nasty.

originally posted by: mekhanics
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

That is the best and worst infographic ever.

WTF is wrong with us??? Us being Americans in general. Are we really this unreliable and dumb??? I mean we have the worlds most powerful military and we have one of these two who are going to lead it???

We must be suicidal.

a reply to: mOjOm

What's the old saying? "Whom the gods want to destroy they first make crazy."

a reply to: ipsedixit
Still hurtin that Canadians will not get to vote for Sanders in the US Presidential election ?

a reply to: Gothmog

Moi?!? Still "feeling the Bern"? Of course not. Ouch!! (Sorry, accidentally touched my back pocket.)

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

OMG.
talk about projection.

a reply to: Gothmog

Actually, a lot of Canadians in the West would love to see Trump elected. They want the Keystone XL pipeline built as does Mr. Trump (and as do I, truth to tell).

those who live in glass houses, the last thing hillary should be doing is calling anyone a crook or a liar or a...

a reply to: Tardacus

It would be nice if these candidates stuck to their campaign platforms and fought it out on that basis. i don't think either one of them is going to get much traction in the mud.

These debates are going to turn into a big bowl of hypocritical hyperbole. In other words, its going to be Must See TV. Thing about it is, Hillary can't really say much to Trump due to her scandalous past. She doesn't want to get down into the weeds and mud with Trump, because that is where Trump will stomp a mudhole into her. Hillary has to stay on schedule and be professional with her typical robotic politic/bureaucratic speak if she stands a chance to win. But with The Don, that is easier said than done because hes a master at taking debates into the weeds. Then he has Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon feeding him ammo on the Clinton's, which isn't good from Hillary's standpoint.

Another thing that I am curious about, is that is Hillary prepared for Trump's constant nasty/dirty offensive assault? Will Hillary constantly be on the defensive? Signs point to yes, but we'll see.

One thing is for sure, Trump ain't no Bernie Sanders. So she better be prepared for a debate that is anything but civil. Lets hope shes in good health and state of mind for the debates, because Trump is going to beat her up verbally. Question is, can she withstand it?

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Good points. Trump will definitely be a problem. He's tough and mean. He went toe to toe (verbally) with A.J Benza on the Howard Stern show, years ago, despite being a much older man than Benza, with a corresponding physical disadvantage, but by the end of it he had Benza in a sputtering rage, wishing he had a baseball bat with him, to use on Trump. It was both a riveting and shocking display of what Trump is made of.

He is a tough S.O.B.

Fortunately Hillary has just the antidote to that in her status as a woman. The artful deployment of that feminine presence is something that could completely frustrate Trump's inner juvenile delinquent. Think the high school teacher who never met a tough kid she couldn't play like a violin.

a reply to: ipsedixit

I think a summary of your very well presented case can be expressed in an analogy: People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Is that the gist of the thread?



Not sure if it is an aphorism now I think about it, same diff though.