She was at her best. It was a fine speech, an urgent call for unity, and the delivery was phenomenal: passionate, forceful, and not the least bit false. (There was humor too: the twin-cities joke was great, and will linger in people's minds next week.) From the various personalities she tried on during the campaign, she selected tough, resolute, never-give-up Hillary, and the tone did not deviate. This is much the best and most convincing of the Hillaries: one imagines, in fact, the real thing. If she had stuck with her throughout the primaries, she might have been giving a speech like that on Thursday night instead.
A lot of previously wavering Democrats will be wondering if they have chosen the wrong nominee; even more will be wondering if it was a mistake to deny her the VP slot. But one can hardly blame her for that. The convention wanted a great rousing speech and it got one.
Was it a whole-hearted endorsement of Obama? Having watched an hour or so of instant commentary--which for the most part said yes, it was--I find I disagree. Certainly, there was nothing mean in the speech (though I wondered about the repeated reference to "universal" health care: a coded rebuke, maybe, since her campaign continually stressed that Obama's plan falls short of that). And she certainly told her supporters to vote for him. That was crystal clear. She did not give them tacit permission to stay at home, still less vote for McCain.
So she cannot be accused of sabotaging Barack. If he fails, after this, she will be available in 2012. But there was almost no praise. (Compare Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney on John McCain.) She made the case for a Democratic president, but not for Obama. What she said, in a superbly effective way, was that another four years of Bushism made voting for Obama necessary--in so many words, whatever reservations one might have about him.
I'm sure the speech helps Obama. Much as Hillary still wants to be president, she erred in that direction. Maybe she will get her reward in four years. But it was not an entirely selfless speech. I think she could have helped him more, had she chosen to.
Update: I've just read Josh Green's take. Hillary goes out with a whimper? About as much passion as a Wednesday night city council meeting? Good grief, Josh, were we listening to the same speech?
Sorry, Mr. Crook, but I can't disagree with you more. Although I think that Hillary Rodham Clinton did generally very in her talk (and heaven only knows what Bill will do next), I simply can't see that ANYONE "deserves" to be chosen to be the president of the United States. I will agree that Barack Obama has NOT done as well as possible in various latter stages of his campaign, but that is partly because of the incredible war the Clinton regime put into the primaries. Yes, that is to be expected, so Obama needs to handle it well - which means better than he did. But he IS a civil person and rather handle things in ways that are certainly not part of the present political climate, as also can be seen on all sides from the McCain group. The incredible morose reactions from the Clinton supporters to support McCain's election is simply ridiculous in every respect. If they actually win their case and McCain does become the next US president, then I can only say we will deserve EVERY bit of hell that will come from 4 more years of the stuff the cheney/bush administration and its NeoCom supporters has been doling out to this country. Maybe this country needs absolutely to be brought to the bottom of the pit before it FINALLY decides that major changes need to be made if we are EVER to get back to something resembling what our "Founding Fathers" created.
Yours truly, John Brombaugh, retired pipe organ builder who successfully ran a small business of 10 employees for 38 years.
PS: I certainly hope that Barack Obama will send HRC as his first appointee to the Supreme Court; she would be a great help to this country in that position and she can serve it to the end of her life. Till that is possible, he can appoint her to be our United Nations representative, where she also will be able to be a great help. She IS a good woman and person.
I do agree with you. I thought mostly it was an excellent speech (probably her best) and certainly made clear to her supporters that she and Obama hold the same values and share the same goals. There was one line that was missing however. "Barack Obama is ready to lead this country on day one."
I have to ask, did she ask herself the same question she posed to supporters when she began her campaign- "I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? ...Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?" I think not.
She weakened the Democrat's chance at the Presidency in her words and deeds in the last months of the primaries. When I see the McCain ads that show Clinton attacking Obama, I cannot blame McCain for running them. I can only blame Hillary for giving McCain the script to run those ads. They are very difficult words to take back and she did not attempt to do in her speech.
Great speech, Hillary! She was at her best. But she had to make the speech for protocol reasons. Too bad she isn't running as an independent because Obama is not in my picture. Great potential, but he isn't ready
Hillary did what needed to be done, and she did it well. But one must ask if she still thinks Obama's "not ready"--this was her principal question during the campaign, and she certainly didn't address it in her speech.
Not that she's an authority on the subject. Her qualifications in terms of Commander in Chief are primarily being married to a president who also entered office with virtually no foreign policy or national security experience of any kind.
What she said, in a superbly effective way, was that another four years of Bushism made voting for Obama necessary--in so many words, whatever reservations one might have about him.
Surely that's actually better - because more convincing - than claiming that she adores Obama? If she's trying to get the blue-collar vote which will never really be Obama's base out, surely the key is basically to refocus on the alternative to an Obama presidency - four more years.
"Remember the self-indulgent Nader-ites of '00." is a much more convincing argument to a diehard Clintonite than a spurious claim that she beleives Obama to be the better candidate.
Hillary Clinton won't ever be president and I think she's coming to realize that now. She'll be one of the leading Democrats in the Senate, taking on Ted Kennedy's mantle, if she assumes her natural role. But she cannot run in 2012 without lingering suspicions that she was, through her actions and words during the spring, responsible for Obama's defeat, and no speech can prevent that.
If Billary aren't scheming for the best possible placement to run again in 2012, then I'd be shocked and disappointed. McCain could end up winning the equivalent of George Bush Sr's first term, with the added disadvantage that he'll be 76 in 2012 and unable to tell Dems from Reps, let alone Shiites from Sunnis. Along comes Hillary to the rescue, with the added advantage that her base of high-school-educated cuckolded babushkas will be an even bigger slice of the electorate.
That said, I noticed that Hillary's speaking skills have improved from the droning monotone she deployed in her first senate run.
Clive - When you want to see negative, I guess you see negative, And you clearly want to see negative.
I don't know understand why you think her endorsement fell short. I mean, she said that nothing less than the lives of our children and grandchildren depend upon electing Barack Obama President. How mnuch more sirect can she be? What is she supposed to do, fellate him on stage, or overtly humiliate hereself and her supporters to bow down to his superior tactical skills and cool under pressure, to show that she recognizes him to be the better candidate, and the better future president (than she would have been, and than her husband was)? He had no choice but to run a comapaign that was, from time to time, critical of their presidency and her post-White House decisions (like the vote to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq). I think it is asking too way much to expect her to any more than she did last night to implore her supporters to vote, and to vote for Obama. In historical terms, this was the most effusive endorsement of the winner by the loser in a close and bitterly contested campaign in my adult life. Compare this to 1968 (McCarthy to Humphrey), 1972 (Muskie to McGovern), 1976 (Reagan to Ford) 1980 (Kennedy to Carter), 1988 (Jesse Jackson, who held out in hissy fit fashion for the VP selection, to Dukakis). Except where the loser has been nominated to the VP post, the losers have generally been embittered, and at best tepid in endorsement (or did not endorse at all). Hillary is actually the first to make the endorsement well before the convention.
This speech was aimed at women over 50 (my wife, my mother) and let me tell you, it worked beautifully. My wife was in tears at some of the things she said, and even though she zealously favored Hillary over Obama in the primaries, she is more committed than ever to defeating McCain and the GOP in November. As an Obama supporter, I was very satisfied. It seems as if it is only pundits who are predisposed to favor the GOP and McCain see it differently. Strange how it always seems to work that way.
I think she did a tremendous job in her speech last night. She touched all the bases, and she made it abundantly clear why it would not be in the best interests of her supporters, or anyone for that matter, to support John McCain.
The Democrats need to adopt slogans from her speech: No Way, No How, No McCain and the one about it being appropriate for the convention to be held in the Twin Cities, since it's hard to
tell McCain and Bush apart these days.
McCain appeals to and represents the most reactionary forces in this country. Voting for him would be one of the most stupidly self-destructive things any of her supporters could do.
Hillary's speech last night was the first substance filled and class act offering in politics since she left the race. I imagine that the cable TV's sensationalized controversy talk is a boon to the Dems convention. Without the Hillary element the convention (so far) would be a big non-event. In the mean time as ever, she rises to whatever challenge, not concerned about the critique and we benefit. In the end, Obama will benefit as well I wager. Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying, If you're popular you have waited your life. She is hated and loved because she doesn't waste a minute. Thank goodness in these troubling times we have her. Oh and by the way (and wish Jack Cafferty would read this) she gave a genuine endorsement last night. If she had said, I think he is ready that would have been a lie. Either way, she will be taken down as corrupt one way or the other by the media I am sure. So, I close stating that I was inspired by Hillary's speech last night; and boy did I need it!
I was in the house last night and heard part of he speech...She hit most of the topics but not once did she repudiate her earlier contention that he was not ready to lead...people were left with a certain amount of tension and confusion.
At the after party I attended, supporters were either silent or unconvinced she was sincere.
Anybody remember H. Ross Perot? In 1992, H. Ross, a Texas billionaire ran a successful third-party candidacy for president. As it turns out, H. Ross's agenda was to peel enough votes from George H. W. Bush, another Texas billionaire, who also happened to be the president and hand the election to the Democratic opposition, who just happened to be Bill Clinton. H. Ross siphoned off an estimated 20-million votes. Mission accomplished, H. Ross vanished into the ether from whence he sprung, leaving 20-million voters in the lurch. Bill Clinton went on to fulfill many of H. Ross's popular proposals, like a balanced budget. But while H. Ross's motive had been a vendetta, the Clinton's motives are political. And, on them the lesson of Perot’s displaced minions has not been lost. As Dwight D. Eisenhower said: The only thing new under the sun, is the history you don’t know: http://theseedsof9-11.com
I also think Hillary should run as a third party Independent. She MIGHT beat Barack