I think it’s fair to say that Hillary Clinton’s speech in El Paso fairly smacked of desperation. She changed her delivery style, pleading with her eyes, elongating her verbiage—trying, it seemed, to imbue her speech with at least some of the passion that Senator Obama so easily captures. Interestingly, though, this speech wasn’t simply a stylistic change. It also signaled a possible new message for her--"My America." Maybe it was a result of her new campaign manager, or simply the knowledge that she needs a new tactic. Whatever the cause, though, Senator Clinton just unveiled a new style—and it does not become her.
...
Part John Edwards and part Barack Obama, her speech tried to marry the populist message of the former with the impassioned hope of the latter. Not a bad idea, really, considering the way both the Edwards and Obama campaigns struck deep, resonating chords with the Democratic electorate. What is most intriguing, however, is the way she still interspersed her standards stump speech into the new style. She tacitly promoted and expounded upon hope and change, but explicitly spoke against simple hope—a charge, it should be noted, that Sen. Obama has met head-on recently.
Most interestingly, though, Sen. Clinton cribbed from both of her rivals’ campaigns. She spoke of poverty, raising the minimum wage, and decreasing unemployment (especially in the blue-collar sector), echoing Mr. Edwards sorely missed voice. She also—almost unbelievably—took a rather radical idea straight from Sen. Obama’s speech on Saturday night, re-proposing the idea of college tuition in exchange for national service; and doing it as though it were her own.
It is a bold move, to be sure, to change one’s approach so late in the primary game. On the other hand, the Clinton campaign sorely needs a change of direction, so it’s not a poor idea by any means. The mistake, though, may be in the execution.
Sen. Clinton’s message throughout her campaign maybe hasn’t had the soul of Obama’s or the heart of Edwards’, but it has had the head for the Democratic Party. It was not a flashy style, but it was an even-keeled, level-headed one. It appealed to my deepest sensibility, if not stirring my heart.
On the other hand, her speech tonight rang hollow. She seemed out of character, even a little uncomfortable. Not only was she not herself, but she tried too hard to be her rivals—resorting to near-plagiarism to do so. She is not the greatest orator by any stretch of the imagination—instead she shines in debates and in one-on-one interactions. Barack Obama has made an unbelievable campaign out of understanding his strengths and downplaying his weaknesses (as we’ve seen in his unspectacular but largely inoffensive debate performances). Sen. Clinton should do the same.
As I listen now to Sen. Obama’s speech, I hear him giving another rousing speech to another loud crowd. He is not even campaigning against Sen. Clinton anymore, having shifted his focus to John McCain. She has little time left—if she has any. And if I were one of her supporters I would hope that tonight was an aberration; a simple bump in the oratorical road, due to hasty speech writing, a slightly disorganized campaign, or something of the like. If I were an Obama supporter I would be basking in the glow of what now is beginning to seem inevitable. I would cross-reference Clinton’s speech tonight with speeches that Obama has given. This race could be over very soon if Clinton strays too far from her bread and butter.
As it stands, though, as an Edwards supporter I am glad that his message lives on. And I look forward to voting against John McCain in November.
{Disclaimer 1: Written in haste, please forgive the grammatical errors.
{Disclaimer 2: My first diary here, so I hope the format is correct. Please tear it apart in the comments.