Hillary Framed

Bernie Sanders set the frame and the question:  How corrupted is Hillary?

Bernie Sanders framed the issue not about Hillary's emails ("I don't care about your damned emails!") but about the corruption inherent with being a successful practitioner in the modern political game of running for office, getting campaign contributions from donors including special interests, the revolving door of political celebrity that leads to paid speeches and post-officeholding wealth.

The Clintons were successful at this and raised money for themselves and the Clinton Foundation.   Bernie said it was not a sign of political adeptness and success; it was a sign of capture by the special interests.

Donald Trump is making the same argument, only nastier in tone, saying that Hillary is the most corrupt person ever to seek the office of president.   Her crime?   Doing what every other successful office-seeker has done in the past fifty years: raise money from the people who have money to give.

The mainstream press is missing the point completely in its astonished reporting on how little Trump's campaign has in the bank compared to Hillary's campaign.   Sanders and Trump have made having campaign cash a bad thing.  It is a measure of Hillary having been captured by the big business people who are screwing over the average American.

The assertion is that Hillary is corrupt.   Now the question is "how corrupt is she?"   Too corrupt to elect?   Corrupt enough that we hold our nose when we vote for her?   Not all that corrupt considering everything?   Pure as white snow?   These are loser questions for Hillary, which is why the frame is terrible for her.

She is not defenseless.    Hillary can fight back, hitting hard, and changing the frame.   She can argue that she is pure and the criticism of her is from the right wing haters, because right wing haters are obvious and apparent and besides she has 30 plus years of public service.   That does not change the frame, however.

She can argue that she is raising money from the same people who gave Obama and Romney and lots of other people money, although this is a mixed-value argument since those sources are widely seen as corrupting. She can argue that Donald Trump himself is--or via RNC sources will be--raising money from the same sources as she is.  Neither of these change the frame, either.

Hillary can say that Donald Trump is the corrupted con man, the one who is self serving and the thief of the average person's wealth, from neckties made in China to Trump University to Chapter 11 bankruptcies that left venders in the lurch, reversing the direction of the attack.   And she can say her donors demonstrate her fitness and acceptability, reversing the polarity of the charge, making her donations validation of her experience, more donations being better, not worse.  

Hillary cannot deny the frame: she raised lots of money from Wall Street.   What she can do is change the meaning of the frame and try to turn it against Trump.

How well Hillary responds to this attack will be a kind of metaphor or emblem for what kind of Commander in Chief she will be.   Dukakis and Kerry did not fight well.   Obama did, and so did Bill Clinton under the guidance of James Carville and the rapid response team in the 1992 campaign.    A person worthy of being commander in chief demonstrates it by knowing what to do in a fight.

Hillary knows what to do and she has people around her who know what to do.    If she does it she will have proven to the public she can handle the office.