I've been reading with interest the diaries discussing the primary contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton (BS and HRC). One aspect of the presidential election that I don't recall seeing discussed is the bully pulpit.
A couple of definitions of the term are " a sufficiently conspicuous position that provides an opportunity to speak out and be listened to" and "a public office or position of authority that provides its occupant with an outstanding opportunity to speak out on any issue."
It looks to me that if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2016 there's a good chance that the House will remain in Republican hands. Whether that is because of overwhelming support for their candidates or gerrymandering is hard to say at this time, though I would suspect the latter to play a large part. At this time it is hard to guess who will have a Senate majority or by how large of a margin that majority will be.
If one or both houses of Congress remain in the hands of the Republicans while the Democrats take the presidency it would make for a "weak" President, one who is not able to make use of House/Senate majorities of his/her own party to get legislation to her/his desk.
If the President's party doesn't control one or both houses of Congress then it may be necessary to apply pressure on Representatives and Senators via their constituents through the bully pulpit.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have demonstrated a talent for oratory and an ability to sway voters with it. But neither of them will be running for the 2016 election.
I have no doubt that both BS and HRC can deliver a speech that will fire up those who are their staunch supporters. But how will they do speaking from the bully pulpit to ALL of the country after the election when Congress is being obstinate?
Will both be able to not only convince Democratic voters to pressure their representatives but also some Republican voters to do the same? Will one or both be able to "cross the aisle" in addressing the nation without alienating the Democratic voters by appearing to give away the store? That would seem to require making a relatively broad and not-too-partisan speech (or speeches) that can appeal to the common concerns of both Democrats and Republicans. I'll grant that as the Captain said in Cool Hand Luke "some men (and women) you just can't reach" but if the President needs to get the legislature to cooperate it will be necessary to reach some of the people that can put pressure on the Republicans.
Think of FDR and his fireside chats during WW II. The need is to get everyone, not just the President's own party, to pull together for the good of the country.
Which of the two can reach across partisan lines (I mean R vs D, not internecine divisions within the Democratic party) and convince enough people to put pressure on their elected representatives and so advance the Presidential agenda?
For discussion purposes please presume that it will be possible to get a significant number of Republican voters (and maybe even elected officials) to join with Democrats to work for the good of the country. I'd like to think that it would be possible since it has happened in the past, but the issues will have to be couched in terms that appeal to all sides of the electorate. It may also be best to presume that the "Presidential agenda" being advanced is generally acceptable to all of the Democratic party.
Sanders vs Clinton: which would best fill the role of "Great Communicator" if that will be the main thing enabling portions of the Democratic party platform to be implemented after the 2016 elections?