Reading the opening few sentences of Peta Credlin’s column in this weeks Sunday Telegraph, (below) she muses about Hillary Clinton and the reasons she lost and the fact that she couldn’t or wouldn’t say what she stood for or why she was running.
This brought to mind the first episode of The Kennedy Files on the History Channel earlier this week. When Ted Kennedy was asked why he was running for President in the democrat primaries against incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980, the response was one very long, embarrassing, cringe and squirm inducing silence. He had nothing to say. It was this incident (along with the Mary Jo Kopechne drowning I suspect) displaying a lack of preparedness to answer the most basic of questions that betrayed a Kennedy dynastic, entitlement mindset that killed off and blew up his candidacy.
In other words he was running because he was running. It was a family expectation.
I suspect that in the case of Hillary Clinton, as Peta Credlin alludes to, it was this same (in this case Clinton) entitlement and dynastic mindset at work.
“…Here and overseas, people are still asking why Trump won. The easiest response to the question is to ask “Well, what did Hillary stand for?”
When, stumped, they reply “I’m not really sure”, ask what Trump’s message was. Even his haters will reel off a list of commitments (drain the swamp, build the wall, make America great again) and therein lies the lesson. As political strategists like to say, he had a narrative. She did not and that’s why she lost, as much as why he won…” Government needs to remember — it’s the narrative, stupid