I've been trying to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt for a long time and sacrifice the vague distaste I felt during her husband's presidency because until the Obama surge started, I thought she was the most electable. And I've really tried to see her campaign's upsides, resisted the standard insider narrative, even given her money (to my great regret, as they now call me about twice a day). But the more she embraces an opposition framework for an internal struggle, the more she alienates me.
One of the things that's always irked me about many elements of the left -- from the gay rights movement to third-wave feminism to the way that the Democratic Party has campaigned since at least 1988 -- is that it lets its opposition define the terms of the debate, and creates its metaphors and arguments and narratives within that oppositional framework, instead of creating a counter-framework and defining their own terms within which the debate takes place. It's incredibly, and depressingly, common, and I think it's a big reason that the left is in retreat in American, and has been for about 20 years. Leftist movements elsewhere have had success largely by refusing to fight on the fields defined by their opposition.
In the campaign context, this is especially self-defeating: if you choose the enemy's terms and conditions to use against your own internal opponents, you're going to look weak and ineffectual if you reject those same methods when they're used against you by the real enemy.