Word. Every word.
Thank you. Whatever happened to being a good winner? Grace in victory? It’s just not necessary to rub her nose in it like she’s a puppy-in-training. She lost. We won. Let’s take Senator Obama’s example and show some class.
Let me be clear about this, since obviously it’s not apparent: I have no desire to degrade Hillary, nor to foster ill-will. It’s simply my political analysis – if one thinks that regaining Clinton supporters was a necessary goal, then her speech was good and it was the correct tactic. Personally, I’m not convinced it was.
And it’s truly not clear to me how wanting her to throw some props towards Obama and/or some sharp criticisms towards McCain qualifies as wanting her to “eat dirt” or “kowtow” or “rub her nose in it”. But hey, that’s fine if you’d like to cast me in that light – I’m still trying to wrap my head around how Bush got a second term, so evidently my political instincts are a bit off.
Sorry about that. While I was directly responding to your post, I was also responding to the more-than-just-a-few postings here and at DailyKos saying that her speech wasn’t enough, and how she talked too much about herself when she should have been making Obama sound like he needed to be gilded and put on an altar, etc.etc.etc. So you kind of got lumped in with a general grouseswell I’d been noticing all day.
I think Hillary just knows her followers and knows what they will and will not listen to – at least those who are capable of any rational analysis at all. I honestly believe a paen to Obama would have fallen on deaf ears. She was trying to get them to see that voting for McCain would be a betrayal of her ideals, not some kind of misguided support.
'Zactly.
I hope you meant “groundswell” here, because I don’t know what grouse have to do with anything!
ETA: Swolen or not!
.
.
I agree with those who say it’s a canny speech, now that I’ve had time to think about it. Extremely well delivered, yes, but also well-designed.
Let’s face facts. If you were a huge huge Hillary supporter, you’re sick to death of all this Obama genuflecting, and you probably have a more heightened sense of it than most people. That’s not to say that you would never vote for Obama, but you really don’t have any real reasons to vote for McCain, either. Hillary takes a huge step toward recontextualizing Obama for her supporters. He’s not the enemy anymore. He is indeed on our side. He’s not that bad. He’s not the end-all be-all, but that sort of talk would only puff up Obama supporters, who are already where we need them to be, and turn off her stalwarts, who are never likely to fall in love with Obes the way that some of the rest of us have.
If Hillary can get her supporters behind Obama to the extent that most Kerry suporters were behind Kerry in 2004, she has done much, much more than enough.
To deliver a strategic message like that, make an emotional connection to her supporters, admonish the dead-enders, pump up the crowd, and still avoid giving the right wing any red meat? It’s a towering stack of challenges and I think that speech last night overcame them all to a stunning degree. Her coyness with the media also frothed them up to looooove the speech, which is a great storyline, even if the rift was not that deep to begin with. Simply masterful, and the whole thing makes me think that the majority of her campaign was criminal malpractice.
Hey brah, no worries. Although I was kinda surprised at the multiple, visceral, and totally non-substantive reactions directed my way. Do you really think anything in my post was substantively wrong (rather than just being disagreeable in tone)?
Look, I think Dio has it right. To put this more in GD territory, in broad outline, here’s the way I view the strategy thus far and for the next two nights, with perceived issues and the way they’re being addressed:
[ul]
[li]Obama is “unknown” and “unfamiliar”. First night: establish a sense of commonality via family.[/li][li]Getting Clinton supporters to vote for Obama. Second night: Hillary’s commandment.[/li][li]The Bush administration has been dismal. Third night: an ex-president and future V.P. (hopefully) hammer away.[/li][li]Obama is, in 9thFloor’s favorite terminology, an “empty suit”. Last night: Obama ties the above together, adds some bits, and amplifies it.[/li][/ul]
IMHO, last night’s events could’ve been much more politically effective, but that’s only because I can’t understand the mindset that would lead Clinton supporters to vote for McCain. And that makes tonight and tomorrow critical.
I’ll find it very interesting to compare and contrast the Republican strategy. I expect we’ll get four nights blasting away at Democrats – very little in the way of constructive output, lots of tearing down. Oh, and too many helpings of the POW defense.
Oh, that kind of grouse! That never even crossed my mind. :smack:
First thing I thought of was that someone, inadvertently or intentionally, created a marvelous new portmanteau word. A groundswell of grousing.
And I’m thinking of a plump bird. :rolleyes:
The more I think about it, the more important I think Bill’s speech will be. If Bill can make Democrats believe that he truly, sincerely wants Obama to win and has faith in him, that will carry a lot of weight. Bill has to patch the torch here, and make it seem real. We know he can fake sincerity with the best of them. I just hope he wants to fake it tonight.
Intentionally. I don’t think there’s really enough complaining about Hillary’s speech to make it a genuine groundswell, and since it’s mostly grousing anyway, I figured it sounded right.
I don’t know that Bill will be faking it. He wanted his wife to win, yes. But never forget - Bill and Hillary Clinton are true Democrats. They do not want to see John McCain in the White House for four or eight years. I really kind of doubt Hillary is planning to run again in 2012 even if McCain does win. It’s kind of like Teddy Kennedy in 1980. Sometimes you just realize that it’s not going to happen and you’re better off staying in the Senate.
I think some people are very unfair when they ascribe these extremely byzantine motives to the Clintons. Like all politicians, I’m sure they have occasionally chosen the expedient over the right. But more often than not, I think they want and try to do the right thing.
You give them much more credit than I do.
That’s my point. I think they deserve it. I think on the whole, they’ve served the country well, and I don’t understand where all this hatred is coming from.
I think Hillary is sincerely over it. I can’t tell with Bill. I think he still really resents what he feels was the race card being played against him after his Jesse Jackson remarks. I think he wants his legacy recognized and wants his name cleared of any hint of racism. I think he’s actually entitled to both of those things.
I think you’re right again, assuming that Biden accepts the mantle of attack dog.
One tactic that would work nicely is if Bill provided an explicit bridge between Hillary’s speech and a vision of an Obama presidency. A further kick in the rear of the PUMA contingent coming from her husband, combined with comments on how Obama will be a great president…from someone who’s been there. A strong statement of praise would more than make up for Hillary’s quietness on the matter; I’d assume it was intentional coordination, warranting a glad retraction of what I’ve said above. And masterful, at that, allotting each person their due responsibility according to their strength and appeal.
The one thing I think is still missing: make a stronger and more direct case to the general populace concerning why people shouldn’t vote McCain/Republican. While I thought Hillary’s “No way, no how, no McCain” is/was a great soundbite, there’s so much more to be mined from the past 8 years…