Hillary Clinton: Inner Thoughts
Hillary Clintons' endorsement speech today was well delivered and it certainly left no chance for the record to misinterpret her stated commitment for Obama.
While others are talking about how it was "all about me", I had a different impression:
She has never talked so much about running as a woman in such a concentrated form. I have been on record here as saying that Obama was running as an American while Hillary was running as a woman.
But that was from a more large perspective. Today, we saw her wrap up her candidacy as if the very reason for running at all was to prove that a woman could be president.
From this sense, her campaign may well be viewed as a gender-breaking campaign in the way that Jesse Jacksons 1988 run was a racial-breaking campaign.
There was a little lip service paid to those who are down-and-out, of course, but for the most part, Hillary surprisingly reduced the scope of her campaign to that of a woman running. Of course, this speech was not meant for 18 million people, but her core demographic: women. In that sense, maybe it's not so surprising.
I can't help but wonder, however, if these were thoughts she has wanted to get out for years, but couldn't in terms of the campaign (for fear of making gender the central issue of her run).
A skillful, political speech, no doubt. It was absolutely required of her to do this type of speech to maintain any relevance in the larger Democratic inner circles going forward. Her core advisers and party elders probably have indicated to her that the need for rehabilitation of her image must commence immediately if she is to have any political career at all.
Given Hillary's overwhelming advantages in 2007, had she been able to keep this tone after IA and through 5 more months, she probably wouldn't have had to give this particular speech at all. This thought, along with these remarks from a former president, form a valuable lesson for those aspiring politicians out there.
While others are talking about how it was "all about me", I had a different impression:
She has never talked so much about running as a woman in such a concentrated form. I have been on record here as saying that Obama was running as an American while Hillary was running as a woman.
But that was from a more large perspective. Today, we saw her wrap up her candidacy as if the very reason for running at all was to prove that a woman could be president.
From this sense, her campaign may well be viewed as a gender-breaking campaign in the way that Jesse Jacksons 1988 run was a racial-breaking campaign.
There was a little lip service paid to those who are down-and-out, of course, but for the most part, Hillary surprisingly reduced the scope of her campaign to that of a woman running. Of course, this speech was not meant for 18 million people, but her core demographic: women. In that sense, maybe it's not so surprising.
I can't help but wonder, however, if these were thoughts she has wanted to get out for years, but couldn't in terms of the campaign (for fear of making gender the central issue of her run).
A skillful, political speech, no doubt. It was absolutely required of her to do this type of speech to maintain any relevance in the larger Democratic inner circles going forward. Her core advisers and party elders probably have indicated to her that the need for rehabilitation of her image must commence immediately if she is to have any political career at all.
Given Hillary's overwhelming advantages in 2007, had she been able to keep this tone after IA and through 5 more months, she probably wouldn't have had to give this particular speech at all. This thought, along with these remarks from a former president, form a valuable lesson for those aspiring politicians out there.
Advertisement
I agree. There also seemed to be a hint of sour grapes or blaming her loss on being a woman. There are many types of women. We're not all the same. And it's "may the best one win," not "the woman should win."
But good luck to her in the Senate. If she wants to make women's issues or the plight of working women central to her public life, ok. But the broader your appeal and your issues, the more good you can do.
Thanks for the cogent post!
June 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you know, I always value your professional opinion!
June 8, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, good post. One of the lessons here is the danger of identity politics. The Democrats staked all on it some forty years ago: women, gays, African-Americans. The Republicans replied with Evangelical Christians, closet racists, and nativists. The lesson that needs to be learned here is that progressives need to work on behalf of all working people, not just favored minorities. If the folks in Appalachia understand that there is something in it for them if they will vote for Barack Obama, he'll pick up Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, no problem. If they think he just stands for resentful feminists and urban minorities, the party will have a tough time. The real contest here is between people who think they can buy public law, screw everybody else, and those of us old-fashioned types who believe the country is for all of us.
June 8, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the sentiment of your message. However, not understanding that many voters will vote against their economic interests is political suicide. The Right has long been able to divide the working class vote through race issues. That will be one of their strongest cards this election and they will play it without decency. While one can wish for the political reality you describe, and be gratified that we finally have a candidate who helps move the country away from the old politics, ignoring the old politics is naive. Just as Obama's biracial identity puts new states in play for him it takes away others.
June 8, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
donnerpass:
The people who vote for the right don't think they are voting against their economic interests, but rather for their cultural interests (e.g. values).
You may say that that is crazy to do so, but some Dems I know vote against their economic interests -- e.g. they are in those higher tax brackets.
June 8, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is only partially true. I cite some folks I know -- an Italian/Irish working class couple from Long Island NY. Each are members of the same union. The husband is now disabled and spends a good deal of time fighting with his union for his pension, a useless fight made more depressing because he can't get a call back from any of his "people" in congress. His considerable medical bills will no longer be covered by his union in the near future. He's in for a very hard time. He will vote Democratic. His wife is in the same union. She will refuse to vote for Obama. She might have voted for Hillary, but just barely. She will be voting against her economic interest and refuses to talk about the bleak future she and her husband face. As his medical condition declines and the bills go up, they will eventually lose everything they have unless the husband dies soon. She might have voted Hillary, but not a chance Obama. Every time she sees Michelle on TV she walks out of the room.
The husband believes that Obama/Hillary is an automatic win, by the way.
Spending time with these friends, and their friends also, the racism heard daily against blacks and now Mexicans remains common as it has for generations. As close as I am to the husband in this couple, I would never take my wife to their house, as the jokes about Hispanics come out without thinking. And such a joke would end a forty year friendship.
This is not say that other people from this demographic will not vote for Obama.
I want to agree with you, clearthinker, but you are wrong and naive. That is not meant as a personal attack, though it comes across that way I'm sure. I mean it as a sweeping statement to all Obama supporters drinking too many lattes and organic vegetable juice. Not that I don't enjoy a latte and the juice myself. But I'm trying to eat at the diners and drink at the bars near closed factories and once proud family farms these days, and near the semi-deserted towns where loggers lost the jobs and houses and now make meth among the beauty of Oregon forests. I want to talk straight shit to the other shit- skinners on my mule train. Go Obama !
June 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'd like to argue with you, but I can't tell what your point is. I agree that people often vote against their self-interests in one area to bolter their self-interests in another.
How is this naive or is refuted by your example?
June 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
See below...some how the comment ended down there.
June 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments. Totally off topic: fantastic avatar!
June 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't quite tell if this is meant for me. But if it is, that comic book brain beats my pretentious codger's hat by miles ahead and miles behind. But that's my outfit as a mule skinner and yours as a great thinker. I doff my hat to you. dagnabit.
June 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it was to Clouseau -- but your's is pretty slick as well.
June 8, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
A valuable lesson for aspiring politicians indeed. As a New Yorker (and feminist who doesn't think gender is the point) I remember how Hillary reframed issues such as abortion in speeches as a senator but that aspect of her political skill was never evident in her presidential campaign. She may get her groove back but not as a VP.
June 7, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker,
I'm agreeing again. I also think that after digging herself into a hole, she needed to deliver in this speech. And that not needing to give this speech would have been best. This is what I wrote earlier in another thread:
"What I really wish is that this speech had not been necessary as such. If only the essence of her character could have avoided all her many divisive tactics..."
---
Of course, you said it way better, gracious and thoughtfully.
June 7, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the compliments, Lookingin. I'm glad Monica didn't overtake this particular blog. ;-)
June 8, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay - I'm all for unity but can the Clinton's ever accept anything is their fault? Truth is most of the votes she got were because of her gender! Obama said, "If I lose it won't be because of race, but because I failed to deliver my message and engage the people." (He's said this many different ways.) Has Hillary ever taken responsibility - said the words, "I'm sorry, I was wrong...."
It wasn't because she is a woman that she lost! Her core group are women - many of whom are older and 'want to see a woman President before I die'.
Blame Hillary's campaign organization, processes and premises were a mess and imploded. (Financial malfeasance is right up there.)
She voted for the war! And still hasn't apologized - made excuses but no apology.
Bill helped her quite a bit with those good ol boys who made cracks like, "If she gets the call at 3:00 a.m. she can always roll over and wake up Bill!" These are the same rednecks who wouldn't normally vote for non-whites or non-males.
Yet, with some of the more informed voters, he hurt her with his red-faced, finger pointing and ill-conceived outbursts. Hey, now there's a reason to blame the male!
The list of blame/reasons for her losing the nomination has many items, but being a woman is not on it. We have got to quit diluting the term, blaming the males and less enlightened females for losses or results that were legitimately due to other reasons or we lose credibility when we have right to assert sexism.
Again, Hillary did not lose because she's a woman.
June 7, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting -- and if the choice in this armchair psychology exersise is between "thoughts she has wanted to get out for years" or a skillful political speech to help with the 'rehabilitation' she needs in the eyes of the party, I'd have to go for the latter.
Despite the talk and use of gender as a selling point, it's never seemed to be the core of her concern or the reason for her run for the presidency. Being a Clinton, being an ambitious politician was reason enough for that.
I think the incredibly strong, fervent supposrt from some women is at that same time both her biggest base of power and, because they are angry and disappointed now, the greates threat to her political standing within the party. How she handles this, whether she is able to bring all or most of those voters back to supporting the Democratic candidate is going to determine how she stands, politically, in the future.
She made an exceellent start toward that goal and I hope very much that she continues in this vein, whatever her motivation.
June 8, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my reply to you below... (sigh, TPM get an editing function!)
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/hillary-clinton-inner-thoughts.php#comment-2891577
June 8, 2008 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was absolutely required of her to do this type of speech to maintain any relevance in the larger Democratic inner circles going forward. Her core advisers and party elders probably have indicated to her that the need for rehabilitation of her image must commence immediately if she is to have any political career at all.
----------------------------------------------------
This is quite simply rediculous. Kennedy took his primary battle to the convention floor, was not nearly as gracious in his concession to Carter and went on to have a long and productive political career. Hillary could have done the same. She would likely not have won the nomination if she had and it would have damaged her and the party but she still could have continued on as did Kennedy. A political career is built on the fervent support of a significant potion of the electorate, not support of party insiders. Hillary has earned that support.
I'm not suggesting she should fight to the convention, I believe it would be a mistake if she made that choice. Just stating that it was in no way necessary for her to give this speech in order to have "any political career at all."
June 8, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why people insist on comparing Hillary to Ted Kennedy is beyond me.
In 1980, Ted Kennedy had been in the Senate for 18 years -- and had co-authors and passed major legislation.
Hillary, on the other hand, has been in the Senate for 7 years with no legislation of consequence authored by her. And on a major vote, the AUMF, she was on the wrong side of things.
So Kennedy already had a career in Washington when he took on Carter, Hillary does not. If her name wasn't Clinton, she would be a Senator of very limited stature indeed.
Moreover, while Kennedy ran a real campaign against Carter, he did it with dignity. The first sign of dignity from Hillary was during today's speech. Previously we had lovely moments like "shame on your Barack Obama" and "the sky will open, the sun will shine..."
Indeed, Hillary left a steaming pile of toxic waste for the rest of us to clean up. Because of her undignified, kitchen sink strategy, we now have this:
http://www.gop.com/clintonvsobama/
People warned her that her tactics would lead to this, but she didn't curb any of it. So, she now has a lot to answer for that Kennedy didn't.
Hillary has had a job in the Senate so far. Whether she has a real political career now depends, in part, on her ability to ingratiate herself with the Dem Leadership. Her endorsement speech was a first step -- but only a first step -- in this process.
June 8, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy ran a dignified campaign? Get real. That was the most divisive campaign in my lifetime. Right to the convention floor with no chance to win, not even nearly as close as Hillary's run. He ignored Carter on the stage, even went so far as to turn his back on him after his speech when Carter went to shake his hand, leaving Carter standing there looking like a fool. Now there is speculation that this slight was unintentional. That Kennedy didn't see Carter coming to him and turned as someone called his name. Never the less it was widely perceived as a snub at the time.
Kennedy ran a real campaign? By what standard? Carter got nearly twice the pledged delegates and Kennedy got only 37% of the popular vote. Kennedy only won 12 states. It wasn't even close when he decided to continue on to the convention knowing to win it wouldn't take supers to do it but petitioning from the floor to overturn the rule binding pledged delegates to their pledge on the first ballot and convincing them to flip to him.
As for the effect of Hillary's AUMF vote among her senate colleages, yeah, I'm sure Biden, Dodd, Feinstein, Schumer, etc and even the majority leader, Reid, are all really angry that she voted the same way they did and no doubt they will hold it against her as she moves forward in her senate career.
Hillary will have a career in the senate not due to party insiders but the votes she has backing her. Legislators will seek her favor, among other reasons, because she has a name nationally and can draw media attention and public support to anyone she decides to favor by campaigning for them. As well as drawing media attention and public support for whatever issue she decides to make her own.
As for her so called toxic campaign, bullshit. Both Kennedy's and Hart's campaigns were far more toxic. It may surprise you to know that no hard fought campaign was based on the contenders talking about how wonderful their opponent is. A similar list of primary slights could be compiled after every battle in either party. The republicans aren't using Hillary's words against obama because they are so unique in the history of primary campaigns but because she came so close to winning, is so popular in part because of that, and because a significant minority of her supporters are upset about her loss and might not unify behind the nominee.
June 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree... hence the reason I thought it was interesting that her endorsement (not concession) speech was made in this framework.
June 8, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with oceankat that it's ridiculous to suggest that Ted Kennedy ran a dignified campaign against Carter. It was most undignified and too soon after Chappaquiddic for acceptance among the voters. The campaign started a new torrent of dark jokes about Chappaquiddic, a sign of the psychic unrest about the incident. By contrast, RFK's run was inspirational. It still seems so today.
I thought that Hillary Clinton's speech was one of her best. She seemed quite herself. Perhaps that shows something about the nature of her campaign, though I'm not quite sure what that might be.
I think it a bit unfair to hold Hillary Clinton to some kind of minutely measured perfection at this moment.
June 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant by dignified is that Ted Kennedy didn't make personal attacks on Carter in the way that Hillary went after Obama. He certainly ran a campaign that soured many people -- for starters, he ran against a sitting president.
For the record, if 12 years was "too soon" after Chappaquiddic, it would never be long enough after the event to run. Even in the days long before Internet, you can't outrun the shadow of that event -- nor should you be able to.
The fact is that Hillary isn't a major political force in the country the way that Kennedy was in 1980. She is more like a celebrity that ran (and won)for office and has yet to distinguish herself in the Senate. The Senate has 100 members -- most of whom people can't name. If not for her surname, Hillary would be in with the rest of the pack.
The fact is that Hillary really doesn't know how to campaign. For all this "experience" and "vetting" she touts, she has only been elected to office twice, and once as an incumbent (which is the easiest thing in the world to do unless you are really caught in scandal). Even with that second election, people talked about her wasting millions of dollars.
No one is holding Hillary to a "minutely measured perfection" -- she has a long way to go before we even get to that point. ;-)
June 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. And yes, it was over at the bridge, as it should have been. He has swum a long way since then. But the shore is too far away now.
June 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is another possibility for the change (to the women's issue focus of her concession) and I think it may be present at least in small part: the campaign itself. Being out there, on the ground, in (almost) every state, talking to the women who struggle, some of whom feel like "nothing" (the angry woman in Washington) may have given Hillary real-life knowledge that she simply didn't have before.
And - frankly - being tripped up by her husband so badly and frequently (to the point that there were questions about whether he was trying to sabotage her campaign) and realizing as the campaign went on that she really had some amazing stregths, instead of just announcing that she had them, may have given her a knowledge and understanding of the issue that she simply didn't have before. The point in her speech that startled me the most was the "patriarchial" or protective way in which she introduced, as if she was vouching for, her husband. I think there has been a change in that dynamic, perhaps a fundamental one.
In other words, while Hillary's political instincts and concerns will. in my opinion, ALWAYS be uppermost with her, I think she has actually grown and deepend her understanding of women's struggles. Otherwise, it's very hard to understand how the eloquent spokesperson for "the sisterhood's cause" yesterday could have spent so many years watching on the sidelines while her husband exploited sometimes very young women, being concerned only about the political consequences of such activity.
So, as with many either/or situations, it may well be "a lot of one but a little bit of the other, too." You pose very interesting questions!
June 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You raise an excellent point (the transformational nature of the campaign experience for her) that should have been included in my original blog.
I agree, that it would be difficult to imagine meeting all those people not having some kind of effect on your awareness of certain issues. And if most of the people she talked with were women (core supporters), her growth in understanding would definitely have favored that group.
RFK was a slight figure in politics until he started actually dealing with the issues of poverty once he got into the Senate. He was no saint and his '68 campaign was one of definite shrewdness (letting McCarthy take the heat), but he, too, was transformed by actually getting "out there".
Thanks for the substantive insight!
June 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thread. My opinions about the speech were totally captured in Lifelongdem's blog. Check it out Thinker. I think you might agree with much of it.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/belated-praise-for-hillarys-ou.php
June 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did, gftb. My response was this:
June 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool. We must have just crossed each other. I'm crossing my fingers too. I'm also trying to withhold my cynicism. But you are absolutely right about that "mess." I'm hoping that in subsequent speeches she will be as convincing in putting all that to rest as well.
June 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is another thread here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/reaction-to-clinton-speech.php
which addresses these types of speeches.
June 8, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think your mis-assessment of Hillary's motivation could just as easily be made of Barack? I do. Someone could just as easily and incorrectly say that Barack was simply running for blacks.
June 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, Otto F, Obama has never said that he is running just, or mainly, for blacks. Yesterday (and less so at other times) Hillary has implied that she is/was running mainly for women. Big difference, I think.
Also, there is something that I think should be noted about the difference between racism and sexism - which the comments of likelydemented and donnerpass made me realize (not that it's particularly on point with those comments).
Racial differences CAN be ignore -- not the history, granted, but if we were all starting today with a clean slate and had the idea that different color skin is no more remarkable than different color hair, it could quite easily be a non-issue. There are societies and places, Hawaii being one, where that is actually more true than others. But it is possible, quite possible, to imagine a world in which race was strictly a non-issue, and that's why I think it makes sense to ignore it. That's the only way to "flush" that history away and leave racism in the books. (It's also one reason that racism has crumbled so comparatively easily - I say as someone who grew up in the South in the 50s and 60s. Once you're told that you can't ACT or TALK as if it makes a difference, then there really isn't must to sustain it. Racism is a social construct, if you will, and if society pushes it away, there isn't very much at all to sustain or revive it.)
Some of the differences between men and women, however, is real and is always going to be there. Certainly not ALL the differences we attribute to the genders, and far fewer now that birth control is possible ... but there are still many differences that are fixed by biology: little girls are more verbal and mature more quickly than little boys, men on the whole are larger and stronger than women, only the women are going to bear children, and so on. Those differences will never be insignificant or something that can be totally ignored.
So, while it's certainly easier in today's society for a white woman than a black of either gender, the question of equality between the races is of diminishing importance and can in some not-too-distant future be ignored. Whether there is 'equality' between the sexes is always going to be present to some degree and will be a bit more difficult matter to achieve. In some ways "the same" will never be good enough and we'll have to aggree on equivalences. So there will always be some sense in which the the other sex is going to be perceived as "different" and may have to have slightly different rules and expectations.
If looked at that way, it sort of makes sense (at least to me) that Obama's campaign is less and less concerned with race, while Hillary's became more and more concerned with gender. (It may also explain why black men got the vote long before any women, etc. It's simply easier to set aside skin color and realize that they are all equally men than it is to set aside gender and realize that we're all equivalent if not precisely equal people.)
June 8, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
apologies for typos, tense changes and plural/singular mess-ups ...... why do they become so apparent once it's 'gone to print'?
June 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still responding to "likelydemented" and I assume that your no-comment on his/her problem of "identify politics" means that you agree with him/her. What are your ideas on his post?
My comments suggest that racism (which in my mind should never be termed a "cultural interest" or "value" ) can cause dems to knowingly vote against their economic interests because they are racists. And the unwillingness among many Obama supporters to understand the role of racism, and certainly to leave it out as in discussions is naive. It points to an idealized view of the world without an understanding of either racism or the dynamics of working class politics in America. These are central issues right now for Obama supporters in key states like Ohio, Pa and Florida.
You could clear this up for me with comments, starting with
those of "likelydemented." My view is that the host of the thread has the ongoing responsibility to agree, disagree or modify ideas of the discussion when they come up, unless the issues have been dealt with before.
If I haven't made this clear in any way, ask me as I am asking you.
June 8, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should have appeared above....
June 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I have no responsibility for what shows up on a thread, nor for the opinions expressed. Hell, even TPM doesn't make that claim!
Second, obviously racism isn't the cultural value I was referring to. If you trace the rise of Richard Nixon, you will find he appealed to the "great silent majority". These were people of more conservative values who felt threatened by the free-wheeling 60's counter culture.
These are the people in the middle who chose to fight against the notions of "blended families", "high divorce rates", etc. This is why "family values" was such an effective talking point for the right.
So many of the people who voted against their self-economic interests, were, in fact, voting for the nuclear family, etc.
The Dems have done a poor job in this regard and tend to speak in terms of social engineering. That is why they weren't popular.
Now, if racism is the primary issue, then I assert that this is another reason why one-person/one-vote is a bad idea -- that you want a representational democracy, a republic. This will also speak to why superdelegates are important.
Of course, it's politically incorrect to point out here that many who vote in primaries and the GE are extremely ignorant and backwards. I have occasionally brought up the unpopular view that superdelegates are needed, etc. for precisely this reason only to be shouted down by those people who want to assume that everyone voting is smart and clear of mind.
June 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've extracted the most relevant sentence from likelydemented's comment, and the one at the heart of his idea which bothers me the most.
likelydemented:
"The lesson that needs to be learned here is that progressives need to work on behalf of all working people, not just favored minorities."
This is crap.
June 8, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT,
I'm a little unsure if you're being critical of the fact that she approached it from the gender perspective. I found it unsurprising and perfect. She's come to the end of this path, and whatever path she chooses next, now was the time to reflect on what was accomplished while at the same time looking forward. If I recall correctly, when Edwards got out he spoke of the fact that he was proud that he had brought more attention to poverty. It was the most salient part of his candidacy, some might observe. Well, for Clinton to do this, and put her own candidacy in a historical perspective, this is certainly what I imagine people will remember 5, 10 years from now. The first woman candidate to be a really serious contender. So, I found it rather appropriate that she spoke of it in this light.
June 8, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink