This is too long to be a comment, apologies.
With that speech, Senator Clinton signals the central themes of her campaign. Clinton's campaign is personal. Clinton's campaign is about her relationship with the voters. Clinton's campaign is about unfinished business and unfinished battles with powerful interests. Clinton's campaign is, as Frank Rich notes, about "a long itemized shopping list of government programs...that are nakedly targeted to appeal to every Election Day constituency." And, finally, the Clinton campaign is, above all else, about returning Hillary Clinton to the White House to serve this nation:
"We are in it for the American people."
That is Hillary Clinton's core message. That was the heart of her speech in New Hampshire. With that speech Clinton revealed the core rationale for her campaign: that the arc of her career in public service should return her to the White House.
I'd have to disagree with that, it's subtly phrased but there's a huge difference 'the arc of her career in public service should return her to the White House'. No, she's arguing that the path of her career in public service- which has not been an arc but a linear progression- should take her to the White House as President for the first time. She is not her husband, she is more liberal than him, and she is not running in any way similiar to his 1992 campaign. Her election would really be something new-not just as first woman President- but as someone experienced and passionate and who appreciates the difficulty of getting there.
No matter how worthy the candidate or how admirable that message of public service is, in my view, Democratic primary voters and caucus goers should think long and hard about that rationale. Even if you don't agree with a further argument I make in this diary, I want to be clear right now that I believe Senator Clinton's core message is fatally flawed. It is too personal, too oriented towards the past, too self-reflexive and too self-centered. What Senator Clinton expressed with that New Hampshire speech should not, in my opinion, be the Democratic message in 2008.
I see below that you go right into other objections without fleshing out the above assertions about her 'core message'. How is it 'too personal', 'too oriented towards the past', 'too self-reflexive' or 'too self-centered'? My thoughts on these below.
- 'too personal'.
Let's look at the personal parts of the speech
I come tonight with a very, very full heart. Over the last week, I listened to you and, in the process, I found my own voice. I felt like we all spoke from our hearts, and I am so gratified that you responded. Now, together, let's give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me.
For all the ups and downs of this campaign, you helped remind everyone that politics isn't a game. This campaign is about people, about making a difference in your lives, about making sure that everyone in this country has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential. That has been the work of my life.
There is nothing wrong with this. Yes, there is a personal aspect to it. Then again, it's important for the public to know the person they are electing, and for the candidate to be able to speak personally about themselves. Hasn't Barack Obama spoken about himself in personal, and eloquent, ways? So what's wrong with the fact that there is a personal aspect to it?
- 'too oriented towards the past'.
The past is mentioned exactly twice here, one in implication only. The obvious time is when
The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them.
What's wrong with acknowledging that we have been going down the wrong path over the past 7 years with nonrepresentative special interests overly represented? Isn't disgust with President Bush the reason this website is so large- why the hunger for change is so big? What's wrong with bringing it up?
Where else in this does Hillary Clinton talk about the past? I remember when Howard Dean lost New Hampshire in 2004, he went on a long rambling speech about the '60s and how everything was great then. Hillary does no such thing. Besides that brief reference to her assertion-- an assertion that she has the right to make-- that she has been working in public causes for disadvantaged people her entire professional life-- there is no other mention of the past here. It is firmly grounded in the present and future.
- 'too self-reflexive'
This must be the notion that her themes bend back upon herself. I can see how one might come to that view, as in her closing statement she repeatedly using the pronoun 'I'
We are determined to tackle our toughest problems and stand up to those who most need a champion because we are determined to make America work again for all of our people.
We came back tonight because you spoke loudly and clearly. You want this campaign to be about you because there is so much at stake for our country.
...
This campaign will transform America because we will take on the challenges. We will seize the opportunities. Every single day, I am not going out there on my own. I am going out there accompanied by millions and millions of people who believe, as I do, that this country is worth fighting for.
Yes, she uses 'I' three times, but the point she is making is not a self-emphasis, it is a collective emphasis. We are determined to tackle our toughest problems... because you spoke loudly and clearly... We will seize the opportunities. Every single day, I am not going out there on my own. Sure she is there, but it is together, a collective effort. It is a balance between the people and the candidate they elect.
- too self-centered
I don't see this. The entire speech is about how her campaign is about serving the American people, in particular the Americans who have felt invisible. To the extent that she talks about herself as an agent for that change, as someone to whom the people seemingly invisible to the present Bush administration are not invisible, it is as a part of her message as an advocate and fighter, just as Obama's message also includes the role he would play in bringing about the changes he describes.
You may disagree with that message, you may feel it should not be our message this year-- but it is a valid message. I'll take an advocate and consistent fighter over most other things, and I expect most would as well.
Criticism one: Senator Clinton is polarizing
...
My take is pragmatic. Democratic primary voters should use common sense. Hillary Clinton does, in fact, have high disapproval ratings. She and her husband were the subject of a decade of sustained negative attacks from right wing opponents. She alludes to that frequently. If we select her to be our nominee, that reality will be part of the media narrative whether it is fair or not. Should this factor into voter's decision making process? For obvious reasons, it already does. No one voting for Hillary Clinton is not aware of this reality. It is the responsibility of primary voters to take account of factors like this in selecting a nominee. Clinton's track record in (admittedly very Democratic) New York is her strongest response to this charge. However, the fact that Clinton has made the core of her campaign so personal, so focused on her journey and her relationship with the voters does rise to be a matter of concern here as well. That is the peril of Clinton's New Hampshire speech; it all comes back so much to her. With her disapproval ratings, that could be a perilous message in the general election.
But kidoakland, the voters responded positively when she got personal. Are not a great part of Hillary's negatives that she is painted as robotic, distant, soulless, hard to identify with as a human? I once saw a survey that actually broke down Hillary's positives and negatives by cause. It showed that most people who had a negative view of her thought of her as too liberal, but most people who had positive views of Senator Clinton liked her because they admired her personal strength and character.
Second of all, if you are going to be pragmatic, why not point out the fact that some Obama supporters have called out the Bradley effect in New Hampshire's results? If the Bradley effect can contribute to a 16-point swing from 3 highly respect poll sources in 2 days among Democratic voters in a moderate, northern state such as New Hampshire, how can we trust any polls in the general election? The Bradley effect is heinous, but it is not gone. In 2003, many commentators speculated that Bobby Jindal lost his gubernatorial race because of a variant of it.
But there are more reasons other than this effect of why Obama's public poll numbers may be higher than what people will deliver at the ballot. It has to do with Obama's themes. They are high-minded, about bringing America together, about hope, about all the things that a person should like, should agree with, should find inspiring. Obama appeals not to voters' guts or even their hearts, but to their minds. Thus people are more likely to say that they like Obama or that they support Obama out of a head-calculation, that might not hold up when in the secrecy of the ballot box at time of final decision. How many times have you told yourself you will not eat something because of a diet only to eat it at the last minute?
Favorability ratings, as I have said before, do not necessarily translate into votes. John Kerry had similiar favorability ratings to what Obama has today in February 2004; Michael Dukakis had 66 percent of Americans viewing him favorably in 1988. But those views were not strongly held, they were weak and dependent on the nature of media coverage. In recent weeks, Obama has had massively favorable media coverage, and his favorability ratings are only comparable to those of Kerry in February 2004. Clinton had not had positive media coverage, and her favorabilities are still positive in the latest polls-- they have dropped before and could drop again.
There is argument to be made that Clinton is actually the more electable between her or Obama. She may not do as well among independents, but she does better among Democrats, not all of whom have voted Democratic in recent Presidential elections. In fact, if you went based on voter registration, the Democrats would win every election. I think that Clinton would be better able to hold traditional Democrats, and also appeal to independents.
Criticism two: Senator Clinton's message is not about "change" in a year where change is what the voters are demanding.
...
This passage shows how Clinton's experience as First Lady will be turned against her:
She has rooted her message of experience not in her work in the Senate, or her legal career, or her passion for progress on a few core issues, but on the royal "we" of the Clinton presidency. She was a part of everything, she insists, from health care to foreign policy. To drive the point home, her campaign sent former President Clinton out virtually full-time on the campaign trail across Iowa and New Hampshire. The signature photograph from the Clinton campaign on the day the Iowa caucuses fired the starting gun of the 2008 campaign was not Senator Clinton engaging with voters, but the Clinton couple, Hillary and Bill, having lunch together.
I am going to go out on a limb and disagree with Karen Hughes's assessment. Where in her New Hampshire victory speech, does she talk about Bill Clinton or the 1990s? No where. The very implication of the talking point that she has been 'working for change for 35 years' belies the notion that her campaign is somehow running on the Clinton Presidency and not running on change. If there's a theme to her campaign now, and it should be obvious-- it's that we should elect someone not just who talks about change but someone who has a proven track record of bringing it about- and here she will cite her work for expanded health care for national guardsmen and reservists, how KidsFirst, a part of her health care plan developed into SCHIP, and her work for sick children in Arkansas-- as well as her record as an effective Senator for New York.
I'd say her campaign is not invoking the past First Lady role as the 'best rationale' for a brighter American future. It's invoking age-old theme that the nerd always invokes when he's running against the popular guy. Elect the wonk, the worker, the one with a proven track record, the solid Democrat-- I'll actually make change happen. I'll get results, and people will respond to results. It's not about Bill Clinton's presidency. And I don't think we'd have to worry about Hillary getting into sex scandals. Frankly, the focus on politicians' personal lives at this time is more absurd and trivial than ever, since the problems we face as a nation are greater than ever.
what do you do when the very basic imagery of your campaign, pictures of you and your spouse on stage together or eating together, invoke a message that runs counter to the public mood and the message your campaign is trying to convey? Hughes is saying something powerful here. Clinton can talk about change, and accurately describe herself as an "agent of change", but the imagery out of her campaign sends a contrary message.
Hughes has one photograph. So Hillary and Bill occasionally campaign together. To draw a conclusion from that is rather superficial-- far more superficial, than to say, that her candidacy's historic nature as the first woman to be seriously running for the office far outweighs any status quo imagery that comes from her being pictured with her husband.
Further, when Clinton, as she did in that New Hampshire speech, banks so much of her core message on unfinished business and unfinished battles, she is sending exactly the wrong message to a public that is hankering for a fresh start and fresh voices in Washington D.C.
She never once mentioned 'unfinished business' and 'unfinished battles'. What battles do you speak of? Battles with the pharmaceutical industry over health care? Battles with corporate lobbyists over trade and fiscal policy? John Edwards has certainly waged to carry out those battles, and so would Hillary Clinton. They are battles to make America a fundamentally better place, and whether they are left over from the past or not is irrelevant. They are battles that I would expect any Democrat to fight.
Criticism three: Senator Clinton does not bring new voters into the process.
Poblano did an analysis here on Dailykos that deserved to get hundreds of comments and recommends, it was that good....
That tells us two things. Clinton is not bringing new voters into the Democratic coalition. She's not where that action is. However, when, as in New Hampshire, Clinton wins, she has had success in turning out traditional Democrats. Josh Marshall links to this article at TNR by John Judis that gets at this effect.
kidoakland, Poblano ran a multiple-regression analysis based on city to try to predict vote share in 2008 based on vote share in 2004. First of all, this suffers from an ecological inference problem: just because City A voted for candidate X this year and candidate Y the next year, it does not follow that they were the same voters. Secondly, there is no way to tell how many voters were 'new' voters, and how many were not. You rely simply on the idea that Clinton picked up the 'Kerry/Lieberman' supporters but it should be obvious from both Iowa and New Hampshire that she ran best in the conservative areas of each state.
Now what does that say about electability? It says that conservative, blue-collar Democratic areas are willing to vote for her over Obama or Edwards. Exit polls in both states also showed she also did better among Democrats and among lower income voters.
To find out whether Hillary brought first-time voters to the polls (or caucuses), why not just get the data directly from the exit polls?
In Iowa, where turnout surged from 2004, Obama did win most decisively among first-time caucus-goers, but Clinton also did better than average (about 5 points) among first-time caucus-goers. Edwards was the candidate of established caucus goers, probably because they knew him from 2004. So in Iowa, where turnout surged, both Clinton and Obama brought out first-timers. In New Hampshire, although Obama also did better among first-timers, first-time voting was only up slightly from 2004, so it really doesn't speak much to his ability masses of new voters into the Democratic coalition- even though New Hampshire had an open primary so that you could commit to voting for Obama even if you weren't planning to vote for him in the general election.
You anticipate some of my points below:
In effect, this criticism is half true. Clinton does not bring new people in, and that is a valid criticism of her campaign. She does seem capable, however, at least based on the evidence from New Hampshire, of working turnout among the Democratic base. For her to win in 2008, then, Clinton will have to run a campaign much like Karl Rove did for the GOP in 2004: for Clinton to win she will have to turn out our base in record numbers.
That is common sense, and counts for something. It also dovetails with the rhetoric embodied in Clinton's New Hampshire victory speech which, while it clearly appealed to Democrats, could hardly be said to have been a ringing and inclusive national message beyond our base..
The question to Democratic primary voters then is this: do you want to put your chips on expanding the base in 2008 or do you want to put your chips on turning out the base in 2008? (Obama supporters might rightly argue that he could do both if given the chance.)
And why might Hillary supporters not argue that she could do both? As already mentioned, she also brought in many first-time caucus-goers in Iowa. In addition, she's running toward the base now because she's fighting this primary and she's got to remind Democratic voters of how solidly she has stood and still stands for our Democratic principles for a long time. But she also has a record of actually doing what Obama talks about: she's worked with John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch to pass legislation- Republicans who you think would hate her. And then there's her record of successfully appealing to conservative New Yorkers in her home state. She's constantly open and willing-sometimes to a point of fault- to expect goodfaith and compromise on the part of conservative Republicans. And her track record of working with many of them successfully shows she can do it.
Frankly, it is amazing to me. Could you imagine Hillary walking into a place like FreeRepublic.com and come out with a piece of legislation that she and some of the posters there agree on? That's basically what she's done with Gingrich, Hatch, and some of the other Republicans.
Criticism four: if Senator Clinton wins the nomination we are not expanding the playing field of states we compete in. We are essentially refighting the narrow Kerry/Gore strategy of Red states and Blue states.
This is obvious. Senator Clinton isn't even pretending otherwise ...
Since losing the New Hampshire primary four days ago, Obama has been endorsed by Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
...
Now, there are a bunch of things you can draw from this spate of endorsements. One is that these folks don't seem worried about themselves running or having their supporters run with Obama at the top of the ticket. And these are people from either very conservative or somewhat conservative states. Despite the fact that Obama is running in some ways to the right of Clinton (at least tonally, as the candidate of unity and bipartisan reconcilation), there are still a lot of questions inevitably being asked about whether the country is 'ready' for Obama, whether that's his race, his name, his background in community organizing, his youth, etc. So these folks think America's ready; in fact, more ready than they are for Hillary.
You seem to be overestimating the importance of endorsement and underestimating the importance of polls. Look, John Kerry had endorsements from prominent politicians all over the country in 2004. Tom Daschle, Ben Nelson, and conservative Democrats supported him. But he didn't win because he didn't appeal to the 'beer track' Democrats-- blue collar, working class Democrats who make up the Red State Democrats.
Hillary is better able to win over those Democrats, the actual voting results show. Show me one poll in a Red state that was not a battleground state in 2004 that Obama leads in. Just one. Hillary already leads in Arkansas and make Kentucky competitive. Arkansas and Kentucky were most definitely not battleground states in 2004. They would be battlegrounds with Senator Clinton against some of our GOP nominees. They would not be battlegrounds with Senator Obama. You have to put polls and actual electoral results over endorsements here, sorry.
Senator Clinton's is not a map-changing candidacy and she makes no such claim in her speeches. Senator Clinton's campaign is about motivating the Democratic core coalition to send her back to the White House to serve the public. Primary voters who are looking for something different in 2008, who are looking to compete in Virginia, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Iowa, New Mexico and Nebraska should not look to the campaign of Senator Clinton.
What people here don't seem to understand is that a lot of the 'Democratic core coalition' are Red State Democrats who have turned away from the party because it's become too economically centrist. These people have looked at Hillary's proposals and her life and believe they can trust her to be a more economically populist fighter for them. And that is her message. It is a map expanding message. And the polls bear that out. Show me one poll with Obama leading in Montana or Nebraska.
Criticism five: Senator Clinton will not help us down ticket.
This topic has seen some digitial ink spilled. Tom Schaller at TNR, Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly, and this Carl Hulse piece in the NYT all address this topic without presenting a definitive conclusion, and, for the most part, arguing against any conclusion.
...
The truth is, we can't know what Senator Clinton's appeal would be downticket. ...
So you don't know. The articles you read argue against a conclusion. I'd say that any candidate we nominate, if they lose, will hurt us downticket, and if they win, will help us downticket. That's a safe bet, isn't it? Now combine that above with my critiques as to why Hillary would actually be more electable than Obama in the GE. And I think you have your answer.
The problem with Obama's appeal to expand the party is the same as with all wine-track candidates: they risk losing the beer track wing of the party. That's the wing of the party that doesn't frequent blogs that much, they just want the trains to run on time. Kerry didn't do badly among independents in 2004. Most often, when Democrats have lost, it's because we've lost those Democratic voters.
There's at least one thing I can glean for your analysis that we can both agree on though-- Hillary Clinton is now carrying the standard of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Obama is carrying the banner of independents and Republicans who could very well take over the party and make us nominate a rorschbach test.
Criticism six: Senator Clinton was wrong on the single most important issue of our day, Iraq
...In my view, if you want to examine Senator Clinton's position on Iraq, the best place to look are articles from before the 2006 elections when the American voters turned up the heat on Congress (to no avail) demanding a change of course in Iraq. This Washington Post profile from December of 2005...
And where was Senator Obama in all of this? He was not a 'leader' on the war. In 2005 he was largely silent. In 2004 he said his position on the war was the same as George Bush's. In 2003 language opposing the Iraq war was removed from his website. In 2002 he was against the war, but then again he was representing a safe state legislative district and ran no political risk in doing it-- evidence from the following years suggests he would have given into that risk. He also said that he could understand why Senators would have voted for the war, suggesting that he might have himself. Obama has been no leader on the war.
Secondly, Hillary was Senator from New York, and while I know that it is totally illogical to make any connection between 9/11 and Iraq, it is undoubtedly that many people, in New York included, became more likely to support the Iraq war because of 9/11-- and not just because of Bush's distortions. Bush received a bounce in New York in 2004, going from under 35 to 40 percent of the vote, a speculated '9/11 effect'. Hillary, as Senator of New York, was facing unique pressure from her constituents. That does not make her vote right, but it needs to be acknowledged.
Thirdly, as to why she has not 'apologized', this is a stupid issue. Hillary and everyone else on the Democratic side have acknowledged that it was a mistake by saying that he we had known then what we know how we would not have done it. Hillary, as a woman, especially as someone demonized by the right as too liberal, needs to look tough, she needs to give the sense that she wouldn't be afraid to defend America if attacked, and that's probably what led to the no apology thing. But I don't for a second believe that she's a warmonger.
Going forward, the best we can do is take Senator Clinton at her word. She said in New Hampshire that she wants to end the war in Iraq "the right way." What does that mean? I don't think we know. This is what her campaign website says about what that means. It's also worthwhile to visit the HillaryFactHub at her campaign website to see what Senator Clinton has to say about Barack Obama and Iraq, which is a great deal more than she says about her own positions!
She's said that she would begin a deployment of the troops within her first days in office, and to begin planning for an end to the war immediately. She's promised again and again to end the war. I think she really means it, but if you must be a cynic, also take the fact that ending the war would be popular, even if it goes well. It's interesting that in the debate Obama would not commit either to promise that there would be no troops in Iraq by 2012. But both have promised to end the war.
Criticism Seven: It's "the Clintons" stupid
This is, of course, the unspoken topic and concern behind much criticism of the Clinton campaign.
What exactly does Senator Clinton mean when she says, "We are in it for the American people"? A neutral observer would likely agree that Senator Clinton's "we" is a bit unclear.
It means her campaign. That's what all politicians mean when they say 'we'; they mean themselves and the people who are listening to them, who are willing to support them. That's obvious.
When that is clearly such an issue for the campaign, why has Senator Clinton allowed her husband such a powerful role and image in her presidential campaign? Why has her messaging on this topic been so vague and muddled?
Because most Democrats like him and admire his Presidency, and because he's her husband. Should John Edwards not allow his spouse a role in the campaign? Because I see them together quite a lot. Is that wrong?
It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton won election as U.S. Senator from New York while her husband was still serving in the White House, eg., she won largely on her own. Senator Clinton's solo campaign in upstate New York visiting every county in the state is legendary. She won over all New Yorkers with that. Given that competence on the campaign trail, why have we seen such a resurgence of Bill now?
It's a powerful question.
Answered above.
Whatever happens for the rest of primary season, if Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, there can be no doubt in the mind of any Democratic primary voter that for the rest of the election cycle the media will feature stories about "the Clintons." It's an irresistable frame.
The media will feature stories about whatever they can get their hands on. So what? We will be electing one President. They will have well qualified and intelligent advisors, one of whom is a spouse.
For myself, I think there is something that doesn't sit right for the party and the nation to have one member of a married couple that occupied the White House for two terms seek the White House again. You can disagree, and I'm not saying it would be doomsday if Senator Clinton were to win the nomination, but that is my honest opinion. I don't think that I'm alone. Further, I think news stories like this one from the Washington Post today epitomize something about the Clinton modus operandi that rubs this grassroots Democrat very much the wrong way.
I respect your honest opinion, and the fact that it is shared by others, but I think we should elect the person who we think is best qualified to serve as President. The problems we face as a nation are huge. The changes that need to occur are significant and will not be easy. Focusing on superficial things such as who the President's spouse is and whether they are seen as a couple should not take precedence over electing the most qualified and effective executive.
Senator Clinton tolds us a great deal with her victory speech in New Hampshire. ...
Should Democratic primary voters choose Senator Clinton to be our nominee?
In my opinion, given the evidence above, no...
However, Senator Clinton proved with that speech in New Hampshire that she should not be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in 2008.
I disagree. She's one of the strongest, most courageous, most exceptional, and most solidly Democratic candidates that our party has produced in a long time. No one has faced more obstacles or attacks on the path to the Presidency, yet she still leads in national polls, she still has net positive favorabilities, and she still leads all Republicans in head-to-head matchups in the recent CNN poll. She'd appreciate what it means to be President, the power and responsibility it entails and the potential to make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. We should give her the chance.