Windsock.
Poll driven.
Unprincipled.
Wishy-washy.
When Clinton announced her “listening tour” at the start of her campaign, she was mocked for it. Listening to the grievances of the little people? Why, how magnanimous of Secretary Clinton. Perhaps she will tell them to eat cake after learning they do not have enough bread.
However, Clinton’s early campaign reconnaissance has paid off. Because she had the audacity to ask people what was actually bothering them, instead of assuming she knew what their problems were, she’s been able to carefully tailor each campaign speech to the local needs and interests of the people she’s talking to. The problems facing Des Moines, IA are quite different from the problems facing Columbia, SC or Little Rock, AR or Seattle, WA. Sure, there are some overarching difficulties that every state in the nation is facing — police brutality, mass incarceration, underemployment coupled with rising rents and healthcare costs — but there are also hyperlocal issues that communities care very deeply about, and having someone who is a candidate for present acknowledge those issues forges a deep connection.
Each day we get another diary detailing those tailor made speeches (thanks Lysis!), as well as more details about the policies she is crafting to address not only the bigger issues, but the nitty gritty details of what ails local communities as well.
In my day job as an IT analyst, I’ve learned that the biggest mistake you can make is assuming that you already know what the problem is. “People aren’t using X feature. That means they must not know the feature exists. We should educate them about the feature.” If you go and ask someone, however, if they are aware of X feature, you’ll probably hear, “Yes, we know X feature exists. We don’t like it because it doesn’t match our workflow and it’s really hard to use.” What started out as a training issue suddenly transforms into a project to fix the actual problem. The user isn’t always right, but they are sometimes aware of the real reason they’re doing it wrong on purpose.
So go ahead and call Clinton a corporate shill, in the pocket of Wall Street, the representative of the 1% — there’s a ring of truth to those and Clinton herself will be the first to admit that yes, Wall Street is in New York and as their Senator she felt obligated to represent them too.
Go ahead and call Clinton part of the DNC establishment. It’s truth. Undeniable. That’s why she’s leading in endorsements — she is part and parcel of the party, and they know it.
But when you call her a “poll-tested, wishy-washy windsock” just watch me blink my eyes in confusion.
Since when is asking someone what their problems are, and adjusting your positions on the issues to solve the real problems, such a horrible crime?
Note: Genuine policy explanations and arguments are appreciated — this is not a “safe” zone diary since I am soliciting the opinion of others outside of the Clinton camp. Trolls, however, will be greeted with kittens and eye-rolls.