Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Hillary’s speech
August 27, 2008
She was at her best. It was a fine speech, an urgent call for unity, and the delivery was phenomenal: passionate, forceful, and not the least bit false. (There was humour too: the twin-cities joke was great, and will linger in people’s minds next week.) From the various personalities she tried on during the campaign, she selected tough, resolute, never-give-up Hillary, and the tone did not deviate. This is much the best and most convincing of the Hillaries: one imagines, in fact, the real thing. If she had stuck with her throughout the primaries, she might have been giving a speech like that on Thursday night instead.
A lot of previously wavering Democrats will be wondering if they have chosen the wrong nominee; even more will be wondering if it was a mistake to deny her the VP slot. But one can hardly blame her for that. The convention wanted a great rousing speech and it got one.
Was it a whole-hearted endorsement of Obama? Having watched an hour or so of instant commentary–which for the most part said yes, it was–I find I disagree. Certainly, there was nothing mean in the speech (though I wondered about the repeated reference to “universal” health care: a coded rebuke, maybe, since her campaign continually stressed that Obama’s plan falls short of that). And she certainly told her supporters to vote for him. That was crystal clear. She did not give them tacit permission to stay at home, still less vote for McCain.
So she cannot be accused of sabotaging Barack. If he fails, after this, she will be available in 2012. But there was almost no praise. (Compare Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney on John McCain.) She made the case for a Democratic president, but not for Obama. What she said, in a superbly effective way, was that another four years of Bushism made voting for Obama necessary–in so many words, whatever reservations one might have about him.
I’m sure the speech helps Obama. Much as Hillary still wants to be president, she erred in that direction. Maybe she will get her reward in four years. But it was not an entirely selfless speech. I think she could have helped him more, had she chosen to.
Her omission of wife to Bill among her litany of “proud” roles is noteworthy.
You are right in noting her failure to passionately endorse Obama above and beyond voting Democrat. This is typical Hillary and leads me to dismiss claims that there was anything good about this speech. It was professionally delivered, but her effort at humour always leaves me cold as when a nurse smiles at one before an injection (an experience I avoid rather well–so far).
Rumours that Bill is making his own party in Denver could lead to an embarrassment that will further undermine Obama. The Clintons are self-absorbed and shameless and boring. They simply will not leave the stage; they cannot afford to.
Posted by: wcm | August 27th, 2008 at 9:57 am | Report this commentIt was a wonderful speech, one of Hillary’s finest, and it may even overshadow Obama’s speech, for which the expectations are so high. At least, I felt this way during the small part of Hillary’s speech that I could stand watching.
I also have one question: Why is it that when Hillary or some other white politician makes a good speech, it receives so much praise (even, backhandedly from Fox News in this case) that one would think that the earth had come to a stop in revolving around the sun. However, when Obama makes a great speech, even committed Democrats let themselves be brainwashed by a hostile media into dismissing it as empty rhetoric. Why?
I also have one more question: During the interminable replays of the endless babbling away by the TV commentators about Hillary’s “wonderful” speech, I saw some news crawl to the effect that 1,000 villages in India have been flooded. They may now be under water, for all anyone knows. I can only imagine what the loss of life must be.
Maybe, say in between Bill Clinton’s speech and Biden’s speech, or whenever, someone on TV will take a couple of seconds to tell us? But that is probably too much to ask for.
Posted by: algasema | August 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am | Report this commentHillary did all that could have been expected. It isn’t her job to go out and win this election, that responsibility belongs to Mr. Obama. It seems more than obvious that the wrong candidate is on the Democratic ticket, but we go into the election with the ticket we have, not the one we wish we had.
The election, with Bush’s numbers in the tank and McCain so closely tied to him, is Obama’s to win or lose. He needs to get on with it…
Posted by: Claudette | August 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Report this commentIt’s interesting to see the number of diverse interpretations of Hillary’s speech. The Time says that “no winner of a hard-fought, down-to-the-wire presidential nomination battle ever received a stronger boost from his vanquished foe than Senator Barack Obama picked up from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton here Tuesday.” Michael Gerson of Newsweek says Hillary endorsed the Democratic Party and not Obama. He says that Hillary left Obama undefended against her own best attacks of a few months ago. Janet Daley of the Telegraph did the same. Tom Baldwin of the Times thinks Hillary has thrown her full weight behind Obama. (PS: I hope she did not break his back.) The Independent thinks Hillary has backed Obama to the hilt (did they mean pushing in the sword till only the hilt sticks out?). The Guardian thinks Hillary Clinton delivered an unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama. www.winnowed.blogspot.com
Posted by: Vinod Joseph | August 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pm | Report this commentIt is not hard to see that Clive Crook is a biased blogger. Just read any collection of input he has had in the last couple of months and see how many of them are republican-friendly.
Im just wondering when it is suggested that Hillary is not openly supporting Barack what could she have meant by comments like:
“Im honored to be here tonight (…) as a proud supporter of Barack Obama.”
“Barack Obama is my candidate, and he must be our president.”
The fact is, mainstream media is hard to trust these days and we must be careful with what we are being fed, in the form of news or opinions.
Also we have to look at the implication of our actions, the difference between the candidates is so deep that our vote will determine what happens in the world in the next four years, not only America. People outside know this, and to show for it is the support Barack got in his European section of his recent trip.
If you are in doubt, read the first three chapters of the book “The Assault on Reason” by Al Gore, I just can’t believe someone is telling us what’s going on in our face and we still hesitate.
Posted by: Juan | August 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentAlthough Clinton’s speech is lacking in personal warmth, this makes it all the more an endorsement her followers can relate to. Clinton cannot ask her supporters for a personal, emotional tie to Obama. There is too much of an age and perception gap for that. But I can safely say that all the ardent Clinton supporters I know have switched their support to Obama. They are doing so for the reasons outlined in her speech and throughout the second convention night–health care, national debt, and the fact that they cannot afford (many of them, literally) another 4 years of the past 8. This may be the rare election where issues exert more of an emotional pull than personality.
Posted by: tara | August 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Report this commentI was not very impressed by the speech. She seemed like someone who was being forced to concede that her oppoent had won even though deep down she believed that the judging had been flawed. She touched all the “right” points but it somehow was unconvincing. I wonder how many of the determined Hillary supporters were persuaded to support Obama. I did not support her. I hope we have a woman president in the not to distant future, but she is not the one. I support Obama because I think it is time to move forward. The Clintons are the past.
Posted by: ck | August 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Report this commentTo wcm: “hostile press”? is that a joke? the press is in the bag for Obama, with thrills running up their legs, according to syncophant “hard balls” matthews. they dumped hillary for him. if they were any more in his camp Barack Hussein Obama would have to take adoption papers.
Posted by: njpro | August 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Report this commentTo Juan: to avoid being laughed at, never use an Al Gore book as reference. Talk about biased! his books don’t stand up to the science test.
Tara: unfortunately you have it exactly backward - personality (with lack of experience, evidence of long term poor judgement, regular flip-flops on past and even recent statements, questionable racist associates and mentors)has taken hold of people and they have blatantly denied or ignored that facts on the issues. Evidently it has affected you too.
Posted by: njpro | August 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this commentHillarys speech was well calculated, it wasnt too preachy or to vile, if anything though I think she could have slammed John Mccain harder and more often, but I have a feeling she may have been saving that for Biden tonight.
Posted by: sade | August 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Report this commentShe did more for Barak than I had inticipated and did not come off as a sore loser at all. For that I am very glad and I forgive her for acting foolishly in the primaries. She did her part and now its time for Obama-Biden to toughen up and slam McCain and the republicans with all their might in the remaining days of the convention.
It’s a shame it has had to come to this but Obama-Biden need to rip John McCain a new one because the republicans sure arnt showing any mercy with their smears.
>>njpro– Your comment above suggesting I used the term “hostile press” is in error. Please look again at my post. Algasema and I should not be confused. He edits his posts.
By the end of this evening in Denver, the Clintons–and buzz about what Bill is up to and what terms have been agreed with the DNC to cover their campaign debts–will dominate the next 24 hours. This is unfortunate, and there is nothing Obama can do about it, apart from streaking through Denver. Even then, being caught in the act by only the FT video crew will not suffice to upstage the Clintons.
There was not a gram of grace, dignity or sincerity in her speech, or in her comments to women’s groups in Denver this week. Bill certainly didn’t get her respect; only their presidency was noted. She and Bill know they will prosper better under McCain–together or separately.
Posted by: wcm | August 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Report this commentI’m a Hillary supporter and over the months my admiration of her grew as the critics in the media and Obama supporters sniped and told her to give up the fight. The story about Harriet Tubman was a great analogy because it gave an explanation of how Hillary could keep going with so many obstacles.
Last night she did what she needed to do as a party Democrat; ask her supporters to transfer their support to Obama. Did she close the deal for him? It’s not her job to close that deal, she did what she could for him, but now it’s up to him to close his own deal with her supporters.
Hillary supporters are not serfs, owned and transferable as property. We are individual voters with our own concerns, minds, and goals. Some will support him based on her urging, some will watch and decide to support him, but some may decided that his lack of experience really is a concern. Those of us in the latter group will then need to make our own decisions come November on how to vote.
Posted by: annetta | August 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Report this comment>>annetta– Your comments suggest that Obama will not need to worry to much about accusations of gender-biased hiring or too many out-of-their-depth Madeleine Albrights in his Administration.
Posted by: wcm | August 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentMy preceding reference to Madeleine Albright is unwarranted and retracted. Nonetheless, Hillary’s supporters need to reflect on who they are as a group and not as discontented or disappointed individuals.
Posted by: wcm | August 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this comment**wcm** I appreciate your retraction of the comment about Madeleine Albright.
As to your second point, I have been a member of the Democratic Party for 40 years and always voted accordingly. Over the past few weeks I’ve realized that I’m now more comfortable being registered as an Independent, which lets me consider individual candidates not just vote party rosters. I don’t know who I’ll vote for in November, but my vote will be cast after looking at both candidates, not according to party affiliation.
Posted by: annetta | August 27th, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this commentI wasn’t impressed. But perhaps I am just worried. I am feeling pretty twitchy about the Democratic party at this point and not at all satisfied with the Hillary performance, or any of the Democratic convention at this point. There is a nervous undertone and all of the sickly sweet stuff on day one just ticked off 1/3 of the convention which should be a rallying call to battle, and a battle there will be. Casey was limp, Warner, Mr. Milquetoast, Hillary perfunctory. So far, this Convention (and campaign) is a sickly, sticky confection of nothingness. Cotton candy.
Hillary’s speech was very careful, very calculated and somewhat tepid when it came down to a ringing PERSONAL endorsement of Barack Obama. Also, this fiction about her “supporters” being some kind of automonous group, she just can’t seem to control is simply nonsense. She has cultivated this group of “protesters” which are now biting the Democratic party.
Posted by: Donatella | August 27th, 2008 at 4:51 pm | Report this commentSo, now Obama and the DNC want to hold the roll call away from the main hall, and stop the vote partially through … just in case Hillary does well, which might embarrass Obama and the DNC. This is what happens when a candidate and a party manipulate the process, and try to force a candidate down the throats of the constituents. Obama might have trashed the Clintons, and gotten over 90% of the black vote, but in the process America has been thrown under the bus.
Posted by: Gina | August 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm | Report this commentHow much longer are we going to hear about the “Obama lacks experience” myth? I have not seen any serious argument from any side indicating that Obama understands the issues one whit less than does Hillary, Biden Bill, or any other Democrat whom one can name. As for McBush, it is hard to find an issue that he does understand, unless it is how to squander more of our soldiers’ lives, or how to waste more trillions on bombs and military bluster to order to make the world safe for big oil.
All the attacks on Obama’s “inexperience” are as meaningless as those on his patriotism. How “experienced” was George W. Bush when the US Supreme Court picked him for the presidency?
These baseless and childish attacks on Obama’s character and ability conceal a deeper anxiety that he might really change this country and make it a more equal, just, and tolerant place. A lot of people aren’t “ready” for that.
Same for all the hand wringing about Hillary. She was a fine candidate; she ran a great campaign and she lost. It has happened before in America and it will happen again.
But Hillary is smart enough, and patriotic enough, to know that Obama is all that stands between our country and four more years of Republican disaster, especially if there if no change in the Bush/Cheney economic policies of billions for the rich and “let ‘em eat cake” for everyone else.
If Hillary’s supporters don’t get it, they don’t deserve to be called her supporters, and they will pay just as terrible a price for a McBush victory as the rest of us if they vote for him or stay home in November out a sense of pique or hurt pride.
Posted by: algasema | August 27th, 2008 at 5:48 pm | Report this commentI meant “out of a sense of pique”. Another “algasema”.
Posted by: algasema | August 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm | Report this comment>>algasema– You write that you have “not seen any serious argument from any side indicating that Obama understands the issues one whit less than does Hillary, Biden Bill, or any other Democrat whom one can name.” Agree.
The ones who do are silent and/or politically unacceptable for reasons only Americans understand.
Nonetheless, Obama entered this quest largely on the back of his articulate and sound opposition to the Iraq War in 2003. In and since the debates, we have heard little more on his FP thinking. He has not and does not stick his neck out.
To cover FP, he has brought on seasoned Biden–who gleefully and submissively offered whatever help he could once to John Ashcroft on some anti-terrorism initiative and differs with McCain on little of substance. This selection, while at first impressive only as it wasn’t Hillary, brings many concerns back to the forefront. Two years in the Senate and an apparent tendencey to choose his friends and his words carefully and strategically merit tough questions of him.
John McCain and a strong number two on his ticket will query Biden to the point that he will claim memory impairment.
This is not an election for Head Girl or Prefect.
Posted by: wcm | August 27th, 2008 at 6:06 pm | Report this commentI hope to God that Mitt Romney is not McCains #2, He is smart, and he is Evil. I hate watching him talk, he reminds me of some sort of Investigator or even worse a prosecuter.
Posted by: sade | August 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm | Report this commentHis best pick would’ve been Obama’s: Chuck Hagel.
Rice certainly ticks the right boxes and steels some Dem thunder. She does not fit a 12-year proposal, and would unlikely work as anyone’s president after four years of Young McCain’t.
Certainly, there are other centre-right Republicans who can spell Abkhazia, Ossetia and Fannie.
Posted by: wcm | August 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm | Report this commentWatching Hillary Clinton’s speech on YouTube — she is so intelligent, charismatic, charming. What a mistake, Democrats. What a mistake.
Posted by: RCS | August 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm | Report this comment“Rumours that Bill is making his own party in Denver could lead to an embarrassment that will further undermine Obama.”
Ultimately the Clintons do not matter in the overall scheme of things. Frankly I hope they both fade into the sunset as quickly as possible.
Senator Clinton’s rabid supporters are few in number and inconsequential. They make a lot of noise and probably harass hard-working columnists such as Mr. Crook, so they tend to be quoted or interviewed by the harassees.
I personally have no interest in hearing the self-congratulory speeches at either Convention. I guess attending them goes with the job of columnist, but what a drag!
The Conventions will presumably serve some purpose to active Party members, but they are ignored by the bulk of the electorate, even those such as myself who care about policy.
All the worrying about Senator Obama not being “aggressive” enough to counter the slander from the Republicans is useless worrying. Senator Biden will play attack-dog henceforth. Thank god Senator Obama will not have to. If Senator Obama loses the election for lack of sleaziness, then so be it. The USA electorate gets what is deserves, even if the consequences are disastrous for much of the electorate itself.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | August 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pm | Report this comment