Clinton Speech

This sounds pretty bad to me, especially compared to Edwards' performance. The difference, I think, is that Edwards has a clear cause: his populism. That made for good speeches during the leadup to Iowa, and it makes a good speech in the wake of Iowa. It's a fighting creed. Barack Obama's message, in its different way, also is. But Hillary Clinton, sapped of her aura of inevitability, doesn't seem to have very much to say. Her candidacy is fundamentally about a kind of brokerage transaction; she herself is the logical convergence point for a group of people associated with her husband's administration and she's a competent steward of that network of supporters. But that's not a fighting message, it doesn't leave you with much to fall back on when times look grim.

You could see Madeleine Albright there in the background, but Albright's an eminence grise not someone you go to the mattresses with.

Comments

Albright's an eminence grise not someone you go to the mattresses with.

Speak for yourself, I think she's hot.

Posted by blah | January 3, 2008 10:39 PM

Albright's an eminence grise not someone you go to the mattresses with

Thanks a lot for the grisly image.

Posted by hum | January 3, 2008 10:40 PM

Unlike Edwards, she actually congratulated the winner, and beyond that, pointed out how good of a night this was for Democrats in general. It wasn't stump speech time.

Posted by mad6798j | January 3, 2008 10:42 PM

Did Albright look like she might have shat herself?

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 3, 2008 10:44 PM

Unfortunate choice of words: Mara Liasson on npr just said tonight was a victory for the "insurgents. Huckabee and Obama of course are different kinds of insurgent..."

or something to that effect.

Accidental? Or an intentional choice to stoke the bogus stealth Muslim crap?

Posted by Jon H | January 3, 2008 10:45 PM

I think the result undercuts not only Hillary's "inevitability" argument, but also the sense that she's an experienced political hand, knows how to navigate the system, will outwork everybody, and ultimately, uh, will win elections. She's poorly positioned to have an underdog moment in NH like her husband did in 1992 for the simple reason that the fact of her non-frontrunner status also undercuts a big chunk of the rationale for her campaign. I think the IA loss tonight hurts her more than is immediately obvious. Edwards' ability to continue splitting the non-Clinton vote with Obama may staunch the bleeding for a while, but that's a big tourniquet on a big wound.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 3, 2008 10:46 PM

MattY: Albright's a hot, spry, cougar-in-the-making. Go get 'er, Tiger.

Between Edwards and Obama, which is more likely to choose Kucinich for Veep? Because, that's the one I want to win the nomination.

Posted by TLB | January 3, 2008 10:52 PM

Hillary/HRC/The Queen gave a dreadful speech. But, on Hardball (the guy Chris Matthews who likes royalty) called it the greatest speech, like of a winner. The press is already spinning for Clintons.

Obama has no chance. The Press + Clintons are about to knee-cap him.

I am so sad. I am so sad.

Posted by eorse | January 3, 2008 10:56 PM

Jon H: Well, I know you're paraphrasing, so what Liasson actually said may of course have sounded worse, but I don't think the quote even hints at the Obama's-a-Muslim smear; I didn't make that connection at all until I read your comment.

On a more general note, huzzah for the Clinton and Romney losses!

Posted by Shoshana | January 3, 2008 10:58 PM

I forgot. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC said that Clinton is ready for the national campaign. The Press is wanting access to White House, parties, book offers, etc. So, HRC is a must for press.

Andrea is married to Greenspan.

This is a nepotistic culture. We need to change.

Reject HRC.

Posted by eorse | January 3, 2008 10:58 PM

That simply could not have been an accidental choice of phrasing.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 11:05 PM

Kim Jong Il say Maddy rikey "go to the mattress."

Posted by bjk | January 3, 2008 11:10 PM

K to the J to the I-L in the Hizzy!

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 11:12 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html

If McCain ends up being the nominee, I'd have to think his declaring he'd stay in Iraq for 100 years would make for excellent attack ads against him.

Posted by mad6798j | January 3, 2008 11:19 PM

I happen to be reading the Godfather, as we speak. "Go to the mattresses" is part of the mafia lingua franca.

Posted by Matthew | January 3, 2008 11:29 PM

I could see Matt - or Hillary - putting a horse's head in Obama's bed (if Matt has ever seen a horse).

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 11:34 PM

"Albright's an eminence grise"

Yeah, a pretty grisly "eminence" given her "we think it's worth it" Iraq sanctions concept.

One damn good reason right there to kick Hillary to the curb.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 11:37 PM

Re Matthew's comment "but Albright's an eminence grise not someone you go to the mattresses with. "
------------
Actually, I think the Edwards campaign should run an ad showing Bin Laden telling US TV networks in 1998 that one of the reasons he's going to attack the USA is because sanctions against Iraq killed 600,000 kids. Then cut to Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes asking Madelaine Albright if killing over half a million Iraqi kids is worth it and Albright saying "yep". Then cut to Albright standing behind Hillary as Hillary talks about her foreign policy expertise.

Then maybe segue to Haim Saban and those nukes of Saddam Hussein...

Are you listening, Petey? Wink's as good as a nod...

Posted by Don Williams | January 3, 2008 11:40 PM

Damm. Sorry Richard. Had the same recollection as you --your post came up while I was typing.
Sorry for the redundancy.

Posted by Don Williams | January 3, 2008 11:43 PM

"Hillary/HRC/The Queen gave a dreadful speech. But, on Hardball (the guy Chris Matthews who likes royalty) called it the greatest speech, like of a winner. The press is already spinning for Clintons."

Sure, eorse. Chris Matthews is well known for his slavish devotion to the Clintons and especially to Hillary. Or possibly not.

Look, it's ok if you don't normally watch TV news. In fact I think that's laudable. But don't pretend you know something about the subject.

Hillary gave a good speech, in some ways a very good speech. I don't support her, but apparently she can take a good, hard kick in the face and still carry off a political address on national TV.

Posted by Kyle | January 3, 2008 11:53 PM

Ygz be turnin' up his nose at Madame Madeleine Albright/
But secretly he know she keep the bed a-rattlin' all night

Posted by Ol' Dirty's Ghost | January 3, 2008 11:54 PM

The gist of Hillary's speech:

This was a good night for Democrats! We sent a message for change! And that change is that we want a Democrat in the White House! [pause] Now, that we've got that out of our system, what we really need is a moderate for November.

Bwah?!?

I thought it was a bad speech. The smile was plastered on, but she was pissed. By contrast, Edwards' speech was something Bartlet might have given.

Posted by Royko | January 4, 2008 12:01 AM

Unlike Edwards, she actually congratulated the winner,

I've seen this pushed a lot of places tonight. I really don't think it has the traction you think it does.

Voters don't care. Not about things like that. They never have. Now, if he'd cussed Obama out or called him names, or hinted that he was cheated out of a victory or done anything like that -- people might pay attention. And as an anti-Edwards meme, it's just not going to fly because the current negative memes on Edwards don't support it.

Posted by Morat20 | January 4, 2008 1:33 AM

Hillary has a clear cause: power at all costs. Not because she wants to do anything in particular with that power, other than just to have it. I have to laugh when I hear the Krugmans criticize other candidates for not being "progressive" enough. Uh, yeah, the Clintons are famous for being "progressive," aren't they?

Posted by jim | January 4, 2008 2:01 AM

I recognize the Godfather reference but it still wasn't a mental picture I needed.

Posted by aleks | January 4, 2008 3:14 AM

"I've seen this pushed a lot of places tonight. I really don't think it has the traction you think it does."

???

You're acting like I work for the candidate and am trying to push a storyline. Why so paranoid? I'm just pointing out a personal observation, that she gave a much classier concession speech.

Posted by mad6798j | January 4, 2008 3:16 AM

WHEN I WAS BORN, WOMEN WEREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE. NOW I'LL LIVE TO SEE A WOMAN PRESIDENT.

THAT'S HILLARY'S CAUSE!

Posted by OPINIONATED GRANDMOTHER | January 4, 2008 4:18 AM

A few thoughts:

1. You know who's hot? Wes Clark. I hate that guy, but jeebus he is a stone fox. My eyes kept darting to that end of the podium during her speech.

2. What H seems to be falling back on is the word "ready", which she shoehorned into her speech as much as she could. Experience, in other words, and she is going to die by that sword once she has to list the things she's actually accomplished in the oft-mentioned 35 years.

3. Opinionated Grandmother, it's not all about you. Or even me. It's about the country, the common good, etc. But I know what you mean. Me, I'm a white woman and I would be way more thrilled with a black president than a woman president [assuming it's one or the other and not both]. That just seems way, way more of a jaw dropper.

Posted by Phoebe | January 4, 2008 5:43 AM

Me, I'm a white woman and I would be way more thrilled with a black president than a woman president [assuming it's one or the other and not both]. That just seems way, way more of a jaw dropper.

If diversity was so thrilling and conferred such a competitive advantage in leadership or industry - China, Japan, Germany, India should be begging for US Negros to move there and thrill 'em and lead 'em.

So far, they are not begging.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 4, 2008 6:57 AM

Hillary cannot convey a core message because she does not have one. She is about getting and keeping power, as Iowans and anyone with open eyes can see.

Posted by john o. | January 4, 2008 6:57 AM

OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT ME. WHAT'S MY FIRST NAME?

OK, IT'S ABOUT MY GRANDKIDS TOO. HAVE YOU SEEN PICTURES OF MY GRANDKIDS? THEY'RE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, SMARTEST, MOST TALENTED...

Posted by OPINIONATED GRANDMOTHER | January 4, 2008 7:04 AM

"Hillary cannot convey a core message because she does not have one."

Yup.

They've really run a very, very bad campaign. This was their nomination to lose, and they're doing just that.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 7:06 AM

"OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT ME. WHAT'S MY FIRST NAME?

OK, IT'S ABOUT MY GRANDKIDS TOO. HAVE YOU SEEN PICTURES OF MY GRANDKIDS? THEY'RE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, SMARTEST, MOST TALENTED...

Posted by OPINIONATED GRANDMOTHER | January 4, 2008 7:04 AM"

O.G., that is really funny.

GRANDMA, YOU'VE LEFT YOUR LEFT BLINKER ON FOR FIFTY MILES. DID YOU REMEMBER TO TAKE YOU METAMUCIL? DO YOU NEED ME TO DRIVE YOU BACK FROM THE HOSPITAL?

Posted by Reality Man | January 4, 2008 7:43 AM

HEH INDEED, NO AND NO.

THIS HAS BEEN ANOTHER EDITION OF SIMPLE ANSWERS TO SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

Posted by OPINIONATED GRANDMOTHER | January 4, 2008 8:28 AM

Albright's an eminence grise not someone you go to the mattresses with.

I thought the expression was "going to the mats" as in wrestling.

"Going to the mattresses" does strike me as more suggestive of sexual wrestling rather than combative wrestling.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 4, 2008 9:50 AM

Chris The-Insane Fraud, always being the scummiest most degenerate racist of them all.

Posted by Jennifer | January 4, 2008 10:11 AM