but, the problem with this approach - and the reason it's a losing strategy - is that she's stuck with this glaring problem: the objective facts indicate that she simply doesn't offer much of an alternative to what she's describing. the insider understanding is that she has a reputation for temper tantrums as a negotiation tactic, and that obama had developed a habit of just ignoring her when she went off on them. she's also describing herself. and, the more she takes this approach, the more attention she draws to her own dangerous - if predictable - foreign policy.
some of what she's saying is even simply anti-populist. america has been in europe long enough. has her court allowed her to interact with any "yankee go home" protesters in japan? she's likely only barely aware of such sentiments or how powerful they are, interpreting them as fringe voices from the peasant class.
tearing your opponent down only works if you take the opportunity to build yourself up. that's the point, right. the contrast. if you spend a half hour tearing down your opponent and then say nothing of yourself, you've just kind of lost the plot. you've just given your opponent free publicity. you might think it's bad publicity, but things have a tendency to define themselves differently. because you've implicitly defined yourself in the process - as an angry, spiteful person willing to set up a press conference to tear somebody down. it doesn't matter if what you say is true.
let's say i set up a press conference about oprah and put down a half hour speech about how she needs to lose some weight. this may be a narrative from her husband's term; i haven't seen any pictures of oprah recently. she gained weight, lost weight, gained weight - the tabloids loved it. constant material. but, i could spend an hour explaining that oprah needs to hit the gym and ultimately be correct in everything i say. but, in doing so, i'd be defining myself as an ass as much as anything else.
the thing is that she can't draw a contrast, because there isn't one. one can only control narratives in the presence of ignorance. hillary's foreign policy perspectives are too widely known. everybody knows she's not offering an alternative to what she's describing. and, she isn't. the more obvious she makes that by drawing attention to the topic, the more she places them on a level playing field.
i know she doesn't see it like this. she lives in a bubble of upper class, white meritocracy. but, that's the problem.
so, we heard a lot about donald trump, here. we didn't hear much about hillary clinton. and, while i won't argue with her overall message, or with any of her details, i must point out that if she's going to instigate this argument she must draw more effective contrast - which she can't do, because it's not real and everybody knows it.
trump has won by watching his opponents fuck up over and over. hillary's doing the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpX0YAbhtvY