Clinton's Speech: The Morning After
Several commenters and emailers have reacted angrily to my post last night in which I questioned the instant media consensus that Clinton's speech last night was a "grand slam" and that she did everything she could have possibly done to unify the party.
With that in mind, allow me to tackle the issue again now that I've had more time to reflect. I think there are two separate questions. One is whether Hillary did her duty as a loyal Democrat. I think there's no question she did. She gave an enthusiastic speech with a full-throated endorsement. She gave no outward signs of being resentful or wishing anything but success to Obama. In short, she did everything that could reasonably have been demanded of her.
But the second question is whether she did everything she could have done to help Obama and truly unify the party around him. And the answer to that question, at least in my humble opinion, is "no." The primary argument in her speech (really the only argument) was that Obama believes in the same things she believes in, and therefore, if you supported her, you should support him. It was issues-based argument, and a compellingly-delivered one at that. But I don't think this argument really gets to the heart of the problem.
Hillary's supporters are well aware that Obama is a Democrat and that he's much closer to her on the issues than John McCain is. But those of her supporters who are issue-based voters are largely in Obama's camp already. The problem is that, in presidential elections, other considerations often trump policy. People are voting for not only a president, but a commander-in-chief. And they're reluctant to vote for someone who they don't like, or don't trust, or don't feel is sufficiently experienced--regardless of other considerations. One of the central themes of Hillary's primary campaign was that Obama lacked the experience to be president. Not only that, but the natural tension created by a hard-fought primary contest led many of her supporters to develop an almost visceral dislike and distrust of Obama (just as many Obama supporters came to feel the same away about her).
These are the people who are reluctant to support Obama now. So what would have really helped last night was if Clinton has tried to put some of those personal concerns to rest, tried to reassure these people that Obama is presidential material. She could have told the crowd that she'd come to know Obama well during the course of the primary campaign and that she knows he's a good man. She could have told the crowd that she trusts his judgment and knows that he'll be a good leader. But she didn't. In fact, there wasn't a single complimentary sentence about Obama anywhere in the speech.
Again, to be clear, I don't think she was under any obligation to say any of these things. But what Obama could have used more than anything was her to vouch for his character and his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief, and that didn't happen.
That said, she gave a good speech and I don't think the Obama campaign can reasonably complain about it (even if I do).
UPDATE: By the way, the reason this matters is because the central Republican theme from here until the election is going to be that Obama is "dangerously unprepared to be president." That's the tagline of McCain's newest ad, and it will be repeated by every speaker at the Republican convention next week.
With that in mind, allow me to tackle the issue again now that I've had more time to reflect. I think there are two separate questions. One is whether Hillary did her duty as a loyal Democrat. I think there's no question she did. She gave an enthusiastic speech with a full-throated endorsement. She gave no outward signs of being resentful or wishing anything but success to Obama. In short, she did everything that could reasonably have been demanded of her.
But the second question is whether she did everything she could have done to help Obama and truly unify the party around him. And the answer to that question, at least in my humble opinion, is "no." The primary argument in her speech (really the only argument) was that Obama believes in the same things she believes in, and therefore, if you supported her, you should support him. It was issues-based argument, and a compellingly-delivered one at that. But I don't think this argument really gets to the heart of the problem.
Hillary's supporters are well aware that Obama is a Democrat and that he's much closer to her on the issues than John McCain is. But those of her supporters who are issue-based voters are largely in Obama's camp already. The problem is that, in presidential elections, other considerations often trump policy. People are voting for not only a president, but a commander-in-chief. And they're reluctant to vote for someone who they don't like, or don't trust, or don't feel is sufficiently experienced--regardless of other considerations. One of the central themes of Hillary's primary campaign was that Obama lacked the experience to be president. Not only that, but the natural tension created by a hard-fought primary contest led many of her supporters to develop an almost visceral dislike and distrust of Obama (just as many Obama supporters came to feel the same away about her).
These are the people who are reluctant to support Obama now. So what would have really helped last night was if Clinton has tried to put some of those personal concerns to rest, tried to reassure these people that Obama is presidential material. She could have told the crowd that she'd come to know Obama well during the course of the primary campaign and that she knows he's a good man. She could have told the crowd that she trusts his judgment and knows that he'll be a good leader. But she didn't. In fact, there wasn't a single complimentary sentence about Obama anywhere in the speech.
Again, to be clear, I don't think she was under any obligation to say any of these things. But what Obama could have used more than anything was her to vouch for his character and his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief, and that didn't happen.
That said, she gave a good speech and I don't think the Obama campaign can reasonably complain about it (even if I do).
UPDATE: By the way, the reason this matters is because the central Republican theme from here until the election is going to be that Obama is "dangerously unprepared to be president." That's the tagline of McCain's newest ad, and it will be repeated by every speaker at the Republican convention next week.
posted by A.L. at 8:46 AM
6 Comments:
I think Hillary did most of what was asked, so she gets a very good grade.
True, she could have aced it by praising Obama's credentials to be President... somehow, I don't think Bill will make up that deficit.
What has also been missing from this convention if some rip-roaring attacks on the Republicans and how they have messed up. There has been too much forelock-tugging to McCain's "hero" status.
I hope Biden and Obama, but especially Biden, make up those deficits.
Time to forget a war forty years ago and present what McCain has been getting away with for the last eight years. Bush is just McCain lite!
To your point, the mildly disinterested masses vote based on their feelings, not based on their evaluation of a candidate's stated position on issues.
Having created such deep resentment of her adversary, Hillary should address the repair operation with as much gusto.
My take on this is that the conventions and the ads are over-hyped. The essence of this race is that the public wants change and likes Obama, but is not sure if he's ready yet. As such, this election is like 1980. Further, like 1980 the most important event in this election--and really the whole campaign rides on it--is the first debate. If Obama looks acceptable, he wins. If not, he loses. All this other stuff is background noise that the public is barely paying attention to.
I’m not too caught up in what Hillary did or did not say. The fact of the matter is that those of her supporters who have already decided they will not be voting for Obama have such an intense dislike for him that I don’t think Hillary could say anything to sway them. Any pleas to these voters will only be seen by them as her being bullied by the Democratic Party and thus another ‘slap in the face’. Obama is their boogeyman. He is every man that has ever held back a woman. As far as I’m concerned let them vote for McCain.
I just hope they think about the consequences of another possible Republican appointed Justice on the Supreme Court and what that could mean for a woman’s right to choose. I’m surprised this isn’t a point that Democrats have not tried to drive home more effectively yet. Justice Stevens is 88 this year. Ginsburg is 75. The PUMA’s I see speak all say that they just have to get through 4 years with McCain, but wouldn’t that be the great irony of it all? If all these voters so concerned with the sexist nature of media coverage during the primary wind up electing a man who will appoint the Justice that overturns Roe.
But I guess that would be Obama’s fault too, wouldn’t it?
I think there's a fear that if you are viewed as TOO pro-choice, you risk alienating the Dem. Catholic vote, which Obama needs some of to win in OH, PA, MI. The smarter play it seems to me would be to use a little more code-phrasing like "if we elect McCain he has promised to appoint Scalia and Thomas clones to the SC who will turn back the clock on all the gains women have made and we as a nation have made" or something to that effect.
Here's my reaction to what Hillary accomplished with this speech:
http://commonmistakes.blogspot.com/2008/08/hillarys-speech-triangulating.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home