I’ll be blunt. I didn’t expect much. However, I thought today Hillary Clinton began the campaign to resurrect herself and remake herself as a Democratic Leader in the fashion of Ted Kennedy. This was not a perfect speech as some of the pundits/talking heads seem to believe, but I do believe it accomplished what she wanted and also what Obama wanted. In brief, this is what I think the speech accomplished for her and for him.
1) To Go Out With Some Grace and Give Obama a Boost. In marked contrast to her speech on Tuesday, she was both appropriately grateful to her supporters, but also appropriately accepting of Obama’s victory. She avidly endorsed him, asked her supporters to work for him, and made the case why it is so critical for a Democrat to be elected as President.
2) She began the process to resurrect the Clinton Brand. Except among her diehard supporters, the Clinton brand took a beating among many Democrats this primary season. They looked venal at times in their attacks on Obama. And the dog whistle racist appeals to white voters were simply devastating to her and Bill’s reputation and standing among the African American community. Today, for the first time she offered an olive branch back to Obama and that community, rather than swatting it away every time it was offered to her.
Her loss of the nomination was a bitter pill to swallow, and at times she has appeared bitter and spiteful during this campaign, but not today. Sure, she praised herself and her husband, but not excessively so, and in the proper context of explaining to her supporters why a Democratic victory in the Fall is so important.
I don’t know what was said between her and Obama on Thursday night, but whatever it was she, today, gave the right message in just the right way. The party must unify, and it must unify behind Obama, so that everyone in the party who voted for her can accomplish the goals that she and they share with Obama and his supporters. She talked a lot about universal health care, the economy and women’s issues more than anything else, and considering the base of her support, that was probably the appropriate tack for her speech to emphasize. She stated the case clearly that only a Democrat in the White House could achieve those goals. That message will be critical to help bring around her supporters to be transformed into obama voters.
By not striking a bitter or cynical or tepid note in her remarks about the winner she did herself a world of good. It may not have been the best speech she ever gave, but it was the right speech for this moment. I imagine the Obama campaign is sighing in relief that she came through with what leaked reports in the press had promised: an unequivocal endorsement of her opponent whom she had fought so hard against for so long.
3) She placed herself front and center in the Obama Veep Stakes. It’s amazing what the exhibition of a little dignity and grace and generosity of spirit can do for a politician. Until today, the efforts of her advocates for the second slot on the ticket had seemed heavy handed and clumsy in their attempt to force her on Obama as his running mate. I don’t even know if the Vice Presidency is what she wants, but if she does, this speech did far more to advance that cause than any previous efforts by her surrogates. Why? Because it made the case for adding her to the ticket by demonstrating to all of us again her political skills as a campaigner, and by reminding people of the base of supporters and others she likely can help bring to the polls in November. Instead of a flat out demand as some have made, she offered Obama and the rest of us a subtle and at times persuasive argument for her inclusion on the ticket. By humbling herself before Obama and fellow Democrats with this concession speech, and by presenting herself as a Democrat first and a Clinton second, she took much of the edge off public opposition to her among ardent Obama supporters and other senior party officials who clearly have been annoyed, to say the least, at the path her campaign took over this last week.
Did she do enough with this speech to gain the nomination for Vice President from Obama? No, but she put her name back in the hat, and made it difficult for him to simply dismiss her as a running mate out of hand. She still will have to do a lot more to convince him and his team that she should be on the ticket, but I do think she undid a lot of the damage which had occurred over the last several days, weeks and months. Once again a “Dream Ticket” will be a topic of conversation, and the more she does to repair the divisiveness of the campaign over the weeks leading up to the convention, the better her chances will become.
If she does indeed want that spot (and many of her supporters want it for her), this was the best thing she could have done to begin convincing Obama and the party elites that she will be a necessary ingredient for any Democratic victory this Fall. And if Vice President isn’t on her wish list, whatever is on there will have benefited from the speech she gave today, whether that is a Supreme Court appointment or other position of power and influence in an Obama administration.
Obviously, much remains to be determined, and her willingness to “work hard” for Obama over the coming weeks will be the proof needed to show that she didn’t just make a pretty speech on his behalf because she had no other option. But just as clearly, today shows why she can’t be counted out yet as a player in the general election, whatever role she will be called upon to play, and whatever price she will extract to play that role to the hilt.
Feel free to tell me I’m an idiot.
Oh man Steven you really set yourself up for that perfectly didn’t you. Ok, you’re an idiot.
What can I say, I’m a masochist at heart. 😉
538 expresses my thoughts why Hillary can’t be forgiven:
Her earlier meeting and fundraiser with Rupert Murdoch (July 2007) made it clear how she was planning to operate: opportunism and lots of exciting games with the rich and powerful right wing (like Scaife). She burned her fingers badly. We have witnessed the ‘education of Hillary Clinton’ by Barack Obama. The Iraq war, which she helped to bring on, ultimately brought her down.
Yes, but he’s our idiot.
And of course this is Opposite Day isn’t so what I wrote means of course just the opposite. Steven’s diaries are always brilliant but it’s the heart and soul in his diaries that really speak to me.
Look, I wouldn’t have said he was an idiot if he really was an idiot. I think there are idiots on this site, just like there are everyplace else, but by and large I keep my opinions of their idiocy to myself. (Especially since I am occasionally one of them.) I agree, Steven D gives great blog and I’m glad he’s here.
Now, if he’ll just release that hammerlock he has on my right hand. Do you have any idea how hard it is to type this stuff with one hand, and the off one at that?
Steven, you’re a lovable sexy idiot. Hillary Clinton did not begin the process of resurrecting the Clinton Brand, but began the process of blazing her own trail & developing her own legacy.
I agree the speech served its purpose but one speech is only a start. She needs to engage those supporters of hers that want to sit this one out or who want to vote for McCain. Either by speaking directly to them, or by campaigning for Obama so enthusiastically that they can’t help but get it, she needs to take action. If many of her supporters sit this one out, it will be due to the way she has run her campaign up to now — delegitimizing Obama as a potential President has been her strategy. And it has worked for some — we don’t know how many — of her supporters. She did this and now she must undo it. Just saying “I endorse Obama,” a few times won’t change people’s minds. It will just make her a more of a martyr in the eyes of some, who will continue to reject Obama, as they have all along.
She needs to tell her supporters that John McCain — specifically, John McCain, not some hypothetical Republican candidate — is not fit to be President. She has to tell them their reproductive rights are at stake. She has to work as hard to elect Obama as she worked to make people see him as unelectable.
Anything less won’t do.
I do not have such a forgiving nature. I’m glad she gave a positive speech for Obama’s sake. But, given her performance over the past months, it’s likely she gave that speech as she did because it was finally brought home to her that her career was burnt toast if she didn’t.
No way in hell do I want her on the ticket with Obama. She revealed herself during her campaign. Just because she’s pulled out the “friendly face” doesn’t mean she’s changed at all. I remember what she did. I’ll never trust her. I certainly wouldn’t vote for her.
She clearly revealed that she’s in it for herself. And she gave that speech for her sake, because it was necessary for her career.
You wrote exactly what I wanted to say.
The Clintons’ political capital can be valued in Confederate Dollars as far as I’m concerned…
I’ll second that. We need to say a completye buh-bye to Clintonism.
No to Clinton as Veep.
Bill Kristol made it clear why it won’t happen and
Vamity Fair presented the evidence.
Former president Jimmy Carter, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said No….it’s a bad idea.
It would go back on his message and demonstrate he can be pushed around by Clinton’s surrogates.
And with Clinton’s baggage and her criticism of Obama, what a spectacle the GOP would make of the ticket
SO with her criticisms of Obama, she shot her chance.
Agreed. Too much damage has been done, and anyway, Obama has been running on CHANGE.
Hillary as veep (or Tom Daschle as I heard David Brooks spout on NPR yesterday) isn’t change.
Having said that, Obama will choose a woman veep. But it will not be Hillary.
I’m not wedded to a VP candidate’s gender. Get the best person for equality issues, whether gender, race, sexual preference. Someone who’s got an inkling about economics. Whose message is in harmony with Obama’s. I would love to see Edwards.
Edwards has been reported as not interested. Maybe AG.
Daschle most likely CoS (chief of staff). Senator Webb has been floated, Governors Sebelius and Schweitzer whose profile make an interesting read but light on heft imho.
As you noted, the best person for the job excluding the Clintons who’d be a distraction.
Hillary has put me off women in politics completely. In my district there is a DLC woman running against a total wingnut. I was going to hold my nose and vote for her, but I’m tempted to sit this one out. Why give support to the DLC? Why vote for someone who probably is going to sabotage Obama’s program. In the next district over that’s exactly what happened when we elected a Blue Dog woman. She lied during the campaign like Hillary, then voted with the Republicans on everything but Nancy Pelosi’s Speakership. The Old Boy network has been replaced by an Old Girl’s network.
Here I am represented by Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein in the Senate, Jackie Speier in the House. Feinstein I’d like replaced with a real Dem, the other two are great.
I was very much not just supporting Obama but opposed to Clinton. Her campaign was unarguably damaging both to her and to the party. But the time has come to let go of the hostility some of us have felt for so many weeks. Clinton is a gut punching pol of the kind we’ve all often said we wanted. She has some making up to do, for sure, but for our part, we now have to give her the space and even trust she’ll need to accomplish that — to remember that she is, after all, still a Democrat, still more on our side than not.
Much as I’ve disliked the would-be Clinton dynasty, I’d have no problem with her as VP, at least if we had some reason to think Bill would be out of the picture. My problem is the campaign — I think there’s just too many slashing quotes out there she’s made about Obama. For all her campaigning ability, I’m afraid the constant repetition by the wingnut pols and press would prove too much of a distraction from what Obama needs to communicate. It’s important that Clinton visibly and wholeheartedly work for Obama’s victory over McCain. She will have more credibility in that effort from outside the ticket.
Besides, for all our obsessing, the VP post really isn’t all that important. I think Clinton would make a terrific Sec of Education or Attorney General. Or HUD or HHS. Or Supreme Court justice. For all Clinton’s campaign transgressions, Obama will make far worse appointments to his cabinet.
“Clinton is a gut punching pol of the kind we’ve all often said we wanted.” Uh, no, that’s not “all” of us. Campaigns designed to smear, appeal to bigotry, character assassination, guilt by association, to some of us, are among the reasons we detest the Republicans.
To see a Democrat engage in these tactics — against a fellow Democrat, no less, was unbelievably depressing. Watching the Clinton try to bludgeon her way to the nomination was profoundly disheartening.
We want aggressive, smart campaigns, but fair ones, that are about issues and competing visions, not about tearing down you opponent.
This is why some of us wish Hillary would just go away. I, for one, have a hard time seeing all these glowing virtues others see in her. They don’t count for much set against her crass and vulger campaign.
That so many feminists think her candidacy was a great thing for women — well, I just don’t see it. She proved that women can be just as cut-throat and dishonest as any man. Big deal.
REPUBLICAN AD, September 2008 (deep, smarmy announcer-guy voice): Is Obama ready to be the Commander-In-Chief? Just listen to his running mate… (insert Clinton standing in front of a group of generals)… Even his own running mate doesn’t think he’s good enough for the job! Vote for a change we can all believe in: John McCain, fighting for America!
You see, when she took the low road she destroyed any chance of her getting the nomination.
Yup, that’s the problem. I wouldn’t mind her being VP, but can’t see any way she wouldn’t be a net negative on the campaign.
No, Obama is the kind of pol “we” want. He fights, he fights smart, he fights clean, and he wins. He’s the political equivalent of a judo master, while Clinton’s the political equivalent of a pro wrestler. The past six months have been the same thing over and over: Clinton rushes at Obama, screaming and trying to crush him to a pulp. Then, after six very confused seconds, she finds herself on the ground, winded, trying to figure out why her opponent’s still standing and she isn’t.
And never quite gets it. So she tried the same tactic again. And again. And again.
Clinton would be poison on the ticket. Not only is her campaigning amateurish and clumsy next to Obama’s, but her politics are regressive and her connections repugnant.
Excellent analogy, and I totally agree with your comment.
Barack Obama has the delegates he needs to be presumed the nominee of the Democratic Party for the Presidential election in November.
Hillary Clinton has a speech she gave on Saturday.
or as Clinton might say herself…words words, speeches are just words.
Now if she follows through on her ‘words’ we’ll see how sincere she is. If she becomes the ‘fighter’ she says she is to convince all HER 18 million voters to vote Obama then I’ll feel more kindly towards her.(and I am getting real sick of hearing about ‘her 18 million voters’)
Omir, Well-aimed sting.
good analysis
and for the record i for one dont want hillary on the ticket…i dont want her as veep…i hope she replaces that pasty mostly a wuss reid as senate majority leader….i want someone on the ticket id like to see actually BE president in 8 or less years as the story may go….im not sure who that is….john edwards would be at the top of my list but i dont think he wants it….how bout sheila jackson lee or is that just too much dark meat on the ticket for the pseudo enlightened democratic crowd? i hope he picks someone young and inexperienced like dan quayle only not full of stupid….how bout russ feingold? i would do extra sessions and raise the max for that ticket….thats a ticket i can believe in.
I read the other day that Edwards said he wasn’t interested. He’d probably take it if he was offered, but that’s true of a lot of people.
Obama needs a fellow agent of change. Someone like Schweitzer, but it won’t be Schweitzer IMO. He still has stuff he wants to do in Montana.
I know that Edwards said he didn’t want it, but I saw polls where he added points for Obama in a lot of those Appalachian states, like in OH, PA and VA. Edwards speaks well to organized labor, to the “bitter” white crowd, to rural America. his rhetoric is almost FDR-like, would be in harmony with Barack and could help establish a more progressive direction for the country. Everyone in America could use a little social justice right about now. I suspect that the economy may show a lot more weakness in the coming months, and showing a contrast between the “let ’em drown” Bush crowd and the “let’s fix the system” message would play well. He could do a lot on the campaign trail, sort of an eastern version of what people see Richardson as doing.
I don’t think that a right-winger in foreign affairs is going to play much beyond the 25-30% who always vote Republican. People are sick and tired of this. Most of this rhetoric is sold on fear and anger, but people only to need to look at the foreclosures and gas prices to be fearful and angry, and they know where that misery is coming from.
Sorry, I didn’t listen to H. Clinton’s speak today. I had more important things to do, like get groceries and take a hike along the shore with my girlfriend.
Reid should definitely be replaced — but not by Hillary. I think she would be an extremely misguided choice for majority leader. Thankfully, the likelihood of her becoming majority leader is small. She is a junior senator with little senate experience. She has continually demonstrated bad judgment and bad strategy. She has very serious character flaws, such as being a liar and never accepting personal responsibility for anything that goes wrong — always somebody else’s fault. True, she is a tough fighter, but not a smart one. And i have never seen her or her husband fight for the Democratic Party, only for themselves and their clique (the DLC).
How about Barbara Boxer to replace Reid, you know, if it’s a big sweep in November.
Should she have formally released her delegates, though?
Obama/Feingold would rock. So would Obama/Edwards, Obama/Sibelius, Obama/Richardson, or Obama/Clark. And Obama/What’sHisNameGovOfOhio might be a good idea. And probably a bunch more that slip my mind at the moment.
Obama/Clinton would not rock.
Yes.
Even if Obama had a “Bobby Kennedy moment” or something equally bad for his career, as things stand now any heavy-handed play by Clinton would not aid her. Surrender fully. That’s what you’re supposed to do in a Presidential campaign.
Obama/Webb would really rock.
If she didn’t, she’d tell Davis and Johnson to knock it off and they would. Personally, I think her commander-in-chief line, already being used in commercials by Republicans, disqualifies her, but if she can find an effective way to walk that back, I would consider her. She would be good for getting elected, but could create problems for governing, as she and Bill would be competing with Obama.
Unless,of course, you want to plunge this country into more and and more wars?
Hillary Clinton has lost me ever since she became an enabler of Bush by voting for the IWR and continued her support by threatening Iran with obliteration.
She is a believer in American/Israeli hegemony for whom a war against the Arabs/Muslims is de riguer.
Her ability to lie with a straight face has come undone during this campaign and she is going to be a liability to any Democrat from now on.
The best way to get Hillary off the front page is to challenge her in the NY primary with a credible challenger.
Steven,
You’re an idiot, NOT. Your diaries are brilliant and on point always.
I’m so glad that’s behind us. I’m happy to have HRC on our side, if she wants to be and it seems she does. I trust Obama to do the right thing for Veep. He has the best political instincts I’ve ever seen. I’ve read about FDR enough and Obama reminds me of him. HRC did him an enormous favor by putting up a Clinton campaign against him. It improved his game and he learned a lot beating her out. He’s ready for McCain now and I, for one, can’t wait.
you know steven, l never thought l’d see the day when l agreed more with peggy noonan than you, but a lot of stranger things have happened this primary season. to wit:
all the speculation of her as vp? never gonna happen, she poisoned that well…see this guy:
defeating him is priority no. 1. billary’s history, she’ll either contribute or she won’t. l’m withholding judgement until, like they say in missouri… she shows me
Why not someone like Sen. Boxer for VP? Works for me.
The Governator would appoint a Republican to replace her, otherwise she’d be perfect.
I read her speech this way. She’s come home. Because she was the presumtive nominee, and because the Clintons were outsiders when they came to the White House and for a long time after, she attracted a lot of scum to her campaign staff. People who expected to make money out of her. The Clintons used people like that, but they also got used. I think her speech was a class act. I don’t agree with her position on the Middle East, but she and her husband are decent Americans, and her husband for all his faults was a well-above-average President. Obama will find use for him.
You pin an awful lot on one speech. I think that’s the main point of disagreement among the various comments on the thread. How you can trust that woman is a mystery to me.
Smile and wave goodbye. Time to steer the party in the correct direction.
And that’s all. It was a nice speech, but really, she should have done it on Tuesday.
She’ll walk it back, I’m sure she will be helpful. But she has highlighted the worst of the DLC–the pandering, the R-Lite, the slash and burn campaign style. I hope their Kraft is Ebbing.
We can be sure that HRC will be a strong populist voice for the foreseeable future; but only because she has found that such a message sells. (I’m only comparing what she said at the beginning of the campaign with what she said at the end. You can do the same.)
For me, the truly unforgivable action in this campaign is how she demonstrated a willingness to stir up and manipulate her loyal constituency by playing them like violins. By stoking their sense of outrage about feminism and inviting vicarious identification with herself, she does both feminism and her supporters a disservice.
Yes, things like the Hillary nutcracker and comments by such as Chris Matthews were sick and wrong. People were right to be upset by it.
But by lying to her supporters about how well she was doing (the whole popular vote spin,) denigrating the actual Democratic nominee, and whipping them into a frenzy of wild conspiracy and making them feel disenfranchised, what did she really do with her supporters?
They NEED a more sensible economy with better access to education and health care. They NEED a Democratic nominee.
Hillary is doing fine. Her supporters are not. Her actions in undercutting a Democratic victory risks leaving these people out in the cold.
She might as well go around and take away ALL those kids’ bikes and games. Because their mommies and daddies will be lucky to afford food if McCain gets in.
trust her at your peril.