Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Amy Klobuchar political suicide: submissive signs, anger, & poor strategy
Look at this exchange:
Notice the words, the inflection of his voice, the way he looks at her: that's a judge power play -the abusive type-. And it worked.
Forgetting someone's name is NOT an issue.
It says nothing about her skills or experience.
People who are attacking her for forgetting a name are either dumb (the host), or playing a game (Pete).
Unluckily, it's the way Amy reacted to the roasting that does say something about her.
The issues with her replies:
- Big toothy smiles (out of place for that type of exchange: grinning in front of abuse, bullying, and accusations is almost always a bad choice)
- Big toothy smiles (twice, because laughter when no laughter is called for make us look nervous)
- She answers too quickly! That makes her look reactive and emotionally under strain. Had she taken a pause, she would have looked poised -and she would have had the chance to calm down and avoid her next mistake:-
- Her voice cracks: a sign of nervousness and anger, neither of which we like to see in a political leader (especially a woman)
- Her choice of words:
Amy: Are you trying to say I'm dumb, or are you mocking me, Pete?
She escalates at a personal level, which always makes you look thin-skinned.
Not a leader-like attitude who can raise about the fray to deliver policies for all.
- She raises her own criticism:
Amy: He is basically saying I don't have the experience of being the president of the United States
In all his smug tone, Pete hadn't said that!!
By stating that aloud she is calling her own criticism, and it's a huge one. Now she has to defend against something that wasn't even mentioned.
Now people start questioning whether she has the experience for it.
- She picks the wrong enemy: she keeps attacking Pete, a huge strategic error
Pete is not her main enemy.
The double standard is real: a woman looking angry loses more points than a man (that's why Trump can, but she can't)
The bigger mistake though is at a strategic level.
Just think about it: what happens even if she "wins" against Pete?
Nothing!
That's a squabble for third best, at best.
Compare it to Warren's strategy, attacking the billionaire Bloomberg with big allegations. That got her the big headlines, bigger donations, and gave her a chance of winning the only spot the counts: the nomination.
Picking fights against a smaller player will only keep Amy relegated to an also-ran, no matter whether she wins or lose that fight.
Just keep on looking at the video and see what happens next:
- She gets cut off, and raises her hand in the "Pater Noster" move
The host cut Amy and Pete off because they're descending into a personal squabble. Now she looks like the kid squabbling in the sandbox.
When she gets cut off, Amy raises her hands up in the air, palms up, in the "pater noster" move, which makes her look out of control angry, dominated, and powerless to do anything about it.
Now the host moves to Joe Biden, who in comparison now looks like the grown-up -and the only who could get our vote-.
Also notice Elizabeth Warren defending Amy right after that exchange.
That was both a good political move and what a high-quality individual, a true leader, would do: standing up for what's fair and defending those who are being unfairly targeted.
Class act.
