She's not a brilliant orator, but in her better moments she has a way of making it work. Like tonight, she observes "politics isn't a game, it's about your lives and your problems." Then she goes off onto a whole list of kinds of people with kinds of problems that she's prepared to solve. In that context, she turns her very lack of rhetorical flourish into a kind of signifier of seriousness. She's speaking plainly and directly -- telling you what she wants to do for you if she wins -- and asking you to support her for clear-cut, concrete reasons. You don't vote for her because you want to hear from her at greater length, you vote for her because you want to see action.
« Romney's Speech | Main | Rural Obama »
Clinton Speech
05 Feb 2008 10:54 pm
Comments (27)
Her mike keeps squeaking horribly. I wonder if its having a subliminal effect on people.
Is it just me, or is the audio and video out of synch? The video seems to be poor quality also. Nonetheless, a good speech by Hillary.
And her latest action is to agree to appear in a Fox News Debate. No Support for her in the general is she happens to get the nomination. Complete sellout.
You don't vote for her because you want to hear from her at greater length
Understatement of the fucking year. You vote for Clinton because her name sounds awfully familiar.
Wasn't impressed by her speech. She seemed to be phoning it in a little bit, but I guess they're all tired. But I also detected a definite awareness of the delegate count and of Obama's tenacity.
The Fox debate thing is funny. What will she do if Obama says no? Have a debate with Britt Hume?
FWIW, CNN exit polls show Clinton with a six point lead in California. and, I'm guessing that doesn't include ballots already cast. could be a big victory for her if, as I suspect, she is behind going into California.
You vote for her if you want to see action, except no one can think of any examples of anything she has actually accomplished.
guachi - I fear you might be right. Keep in mind that Hillary's strongest Hispanic voting bloc is also non-English speaking (or primarily Spanish speaking) Hispanics. You would expect these voters to be basically invisible in exit polling as well.
They just pointed out on CNN that Hillary is carrying Latino and Asian (3:1) voters, while Obama is getting white and black voters. Obama won the white vote 49-43 in CA.
politics isn't a game, it's about your lives and your problems
Barack made that exact statement last night in Boston... albeit, more eloquently.
I thought Asians are the smart ones.
She can say all she wants about what she wants to do, but what you'll see is quagmire, not action. And that's if she doesn't flat-out cave before a quagmire even forms.
I caught the speech on the radio and thought it was the best one I have heard during the campaign.
A few Obama supporters need to show a little more class.
I saw a Hillary stump speech a few weeks ago, and she started by asking us to imagine American in 25 years, an America where we're respected in the world and prosperous and so on, and ... I shit you not ... an America where there are no vending machines, and our children always eat nutritious food. Seriously, that's part of her stump speech. At one point, she almost said, word for word, that she's for good things and against bad things. (I think it was something like, "Bush is president for x more months and in that time I want to make some good things happen and stop some bad things from happening.") It was one of the more insipid speeches I've ever heard. Yeah, Obama can be vague and all, but at least he puts more effort into it than "I'm for good things and against bad things."
That was the first Hillary speech I actually sat and listened to this campaign season. It only made me appreciate Barack's speeches all the more. Blah.
I have to agree. This really was her best speech delivery algorithm. In particular, she shed her bad habit of giving the strongest emphasis to the most negative words in every sentence, e.g. "We must get rid of no chilD leFT BEHIND!!!"
One big pet peeve of mine this campaign season:
the concept that, Because Obama is a better speaker, he's a less effective do-er. Where did this come from?
When you write that Hillary's simplistic speech automatically implies that she's somehow more competent and harder-working, you're making the same point I've heard from a handful of swing voters.
Presumably because repeating "hope" and "change" in seventy-two different combinations doesn't leave much time for Obama to discuss the nuts and bolts of his policy proposals.
I skipped the speech, and I'll skip Obama's. I'm much more interested in how the candidates hold up in debates, and while he's been good, she's been a bit better. I've seen more than enough to convince me that either will wipe the floor with McCain.
Are you kidding? Seriously, Matt, are you completely high? See "action"? She takes more money from lobbyists than any other candidate. She voted for the war. She wants to deport illegal alien criminals "without legal process." And you want to hand her the Cicero medal because you think she is speaking "plainly." No, her rhetoric is an albatross but not for her want of trying (if she care about the late shift then why did she vote to make sure that workfare mothers had to work an extra 5 hours to qualify for benefits). Enough. Tomorrow I am going down to the local Obama headquarters to volunteerm because I have had enough of the bs.
Matt demonstrates once again why politics should not be left to humans - especially humans four years out of college.
He actually considers campaign rhetoric to be of significance in assessing a candidate.
On that basis, General Zod should be President. His rhetoric is absolutely clear and his reasons very specific. And nobody can beat his oratorical style! This is Terence Stamp we're talking about here!
Clinton's policies, however, are just about as correct as Zod's - in fact, in some cases, worse than Zod's - which is why neither should be President.
Jeez, Richard.... Matt didn't say anything about whether or not Hillary should be President. He just says that she can deliver an effective speech, from a certain perspective. Sure, it's more horse-race coverage, but aren't we interested in the horse race?
I think he's on to something. A lot of people really want ..... leadership? Inspiration? Something like that. And then there are people who just don't, who only want someone who will get in there and do the policy-wonk stuff. I guess I'm in that class myself.
Okay, AlanC9, but why should we bother to _vote_ for her if she is nothing more than a bureaucrat? Of course, no matter what she does someone will get up in front of the cameras and tell us we are all better off because of it so what difference does it make? Why waste our time with an election?
I didn't say Matt said anything about Clinton's qualifications for President. He's obviously talked about that before.
I said he thinks her rhetoric is something people should be interested in based on its style.
Folks, there is only one thing that matters here: what are these candidates going to do when they get into office?
Now granted, we can't know precisely. Most of the candidates don't know themselves - specifically, anyway.
What we do know is that politicians' rhetoric is mostly bullshit. If we read between the lines, or otherwise determine that their rhetoric is stupid on the face of it, we can pretty well assume that their policies are going to be stupid. That's why Giuliani is gone now - I hope.
Mostly, we need to look at their elected office votes, what they've done, what they've pushed for while in office, who advises them, and who they are clearly pandering to and taking campaign contributions from.
That's another reason Giuliani is gone now - the endless scandals, the piss-poor advisers, and who he was clearly pandering to. His rhetoric just emphasized that he was a neocon lunatic.
Based on that, Clinton is a total loser. Nothing she says can offset the facts of her and Bill's past actions. And everything she's said on foreign policy is bad news.
For Obama, the record is less clear, at least on foreign policy (which is all I care about). He appears to have opposed the Iraq war, at least initially. Problem with that is, as I've said, the Iraq war is a done deal. What's he going to do about the current problems of Iran and Pakistan? Well, all we have is his rhetoric on those issues - since he missed the Kyle-Lieberman vote - and his rhetoric is as stupid and ignorant - if not actually corrupt - as Clinton's. Almost, anyway.
I don't give a shit about "leadership". That's the bullshit rhetoric I'm talking about. Obama is no more a "leader" than Bill Clinton or George Bush was. It's the "policy-wonk" stuff that matters. And both Obama and Clinton are critically weak on foreign policy. (The Republicans, of course, are totally out to lunch.)
It's pretty clear that some people will contest any non-negative statement about Clinton, even if it's made by someone who endorses Obama.
Hillary is not doing anything but morphing her speech to parrot Obama.
Obama has been saying that politics is not a sports and that divisiveness will not solve our problems since he BEGAN campaigning.
Hillary has stolen the change message and now she claims to be a problem solver?
Name me a problem she has ever solved or where she has successfully negotiated with opposing views to prevail.
She is a TALKER not a DOER.
She is a DIVIDER not a UNITER.
She is a powermongerer not a LEADER.
She lacks ideas but she is good at executing others ideas based on polls.
Obama gave the blueprint of how to communicate with the masses and Hillary is doing her darnest to co-opt his message, just as she did Edwards health plan.
Hillary and her mandates are bad news for the Democrats.
Obama has it right under the Clintons the Democrats had massive losses in Congress.
We cannot accomplish moving forward with progressive policies with Hillary on the ticket as we will lose the Democratic majority in Congress to push that agenda through.
The Clintons are TOXIC to the Democratic party.
Actually, I find Hillary Clinton's superb rhetoric to be grossly underrated. Simple, effective and inexpensive - it has saved me hundreds of dollars on sleeping pills. Simply select your Youtube clip and deep, dreamless sleep can be yours. Guaranteed to work within 30 seconds, or your money back.
Comments closed February 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Wow, she sounds like she already has the nomination locked up despite the campaign possibly losing delegates tonight. Not even an allusion to Obama. Where are the Obama surrogates to call out the arrogance of the Hillary campaign?
They never cease to surprise me.
Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 5, 2008 11:00 PM