Last Tuesday night in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton gave what may have been the speech of her life on the evening of her greatest political victory. Clinton opened with these now famous words:
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.
If part one of this diary represented an examination of Clinton's life work; this moment of victory from New Hampshire serves as an essential introduction to what we can expect if we chose Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee...
Please, watch that speech again.
It looks different five days later without the glow of Senator Clinton's surprise 3-point victory. In fact, Clinton's New Hampshire victory speech represents the best introduction voters have yet seen regarding what it would actually look and feel like to have Hillary as the Democratic nominee:
Too many have been invisible for too long. Well, you are not invisible to me.
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. It's time we had a president who stands up for all of you.
I intend to be that president, to be a president who puts you first, your lives, your families, your children, your futures. I believe deeply in America, in our can-do spirit, in our ability to meet any challenge and solve any problem. I believe in what we can do together.
In the future we will build together there will be no more invisible Americans. So we're going to take what we've learned here in New Hampshire and we're going to rally on and make our case. We are in it for the long run.
And that is because we are in it for the American people.
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.
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 sitting at the center of the Democratic national message in 2008. 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 fundmentally flawed. It is too personal, too oriented towards the past, too self-reflexive and too self-centered: it's about her, more than it is about us. It's sends the wrong message to the nation's voters about the
Democratic Party. What Senator Clinton expressed with that New Hampshire speech should not, in my opinion, be the Democratic message in 2008.
::
There's more to consider about Hillary as the Democratic nominee than her core message.
There are a set of real and valid criticisms of the Clinton campaign that we should consider before we choose Senator Clinton as the party's nominee. While these criticisms form a familiar list to anyone who has been reading blogs over the last months, I have yet to seen them laid out critically in one place with supporting material. Let's take a look at them now and examine them with a cold eye.
::
Criticism one: Senator Clinton is polarizing
This has always seemed an unfair accusation. It would be more accurate to say that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the subject of coordinated, well-funded attacks that were part of one of the most polarizing periods in American presidential history. Richard Viguerie and Rush Limbaugh are polarizing; to blame their target is backwards. Certainly, Senator Clinton's record in New York where she won reelection in 2006 taking all but four counties gives some perspective here.
The pundits have some interesting takes on this. Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis had an interesting post about this, saying, in a nutshell "everybody's got 40% of the country opposed to them, and the GOP candidates more so than the Democrats." And Ezra Klein wrote an op/ed in the LA Times examining Clinton's...admittedly high...disapproval numbers (47%) but discounting those numbers as representing a range where all candidates and office holders get to regardless. Ana Marie Cox can be relied upon to share the CW from Time Magazine on this topic exploring the public's split views of Bill's role and "Monicagate." And veteran analyst Daniel Schorr went out of his way to offer his sage wisdom on this topic on NPR.
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.
::
Criticism two: Senator Clinton's message is not about "change" in a year where change is what the voters are demanding.
It is generally accepted that the Clinton pre-primary season message of "Ready to Lead" represented a fundamental misjudgment of the public mood. It was almost as if Senator Clinton was running in the 2004 primary instead of 2008. Clearly, Senator Clinton moved quickly after Iowa to adjust to that feedback. Clinton's quick work to adopt a "message of change" (and, rightly, point out that she has been an agent of change) in itself admits the cogency of this charge and the mood of the public. But how much of this talk about "change" and "message gurus" is hype and how much of this is reality?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and link to something cogent written by a Republican operative. Karen Hughes had a post this week in TIME magazine that broke down, from a partisan GOP pov, the problems with Senator Clinton's messaging, and in particular, her campaign imagery. 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.
It's probably not fair, but politics is about perception, and for all but the most committed Democratic voters, watching the Clintons together places our experiences with them in a negative and partisan light. With his presidency almost eight years in the rear-view mirror, I can see former President Clinton today and think of the good, bipartisan work he did with former President George H.W. Bush to raise money to help the people of Indonesia after the tsunami. I can appreciate his efforts to reform welfare, or admire his ability to connect with audiences. But when I see the Clintons together, I see a parade of images from impeachment to Monica to Ken Starr that are reminders of Washington at its partisan worst, with Hillary as a harsh and accusatory player. She only underscores this with her frequent complaint — really a reminder — that she's taken "incoming fire."
This does not mean Hillary can never be seen with her husband, or talk about any of her experiences as First Lady. But her campaign is making a fundamental mistake by deliberately invoking this past as the best rationale for a brighter American future.
Hughes accurately describes the dilemma Senator Clinton finds herself in dealing with the experience/change divide. Putting aside the GOP barbs, Hughes gets at the crux of the matter: 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. 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.
::
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. Chris Bowers picked up on that analysis at Open Left where a good discussion ensued. In a nutshell, Clinton's core voters are 2004 Kerry/Lieberman voters. Obama's core voters are 2004 Dean/Clark/Edwards voters. ie. Clinton wins "till the last dog dies Democrats" and is well positioned to reap a harvest of delegates just like John Kerry did in 2004.
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.
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.)
::
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 and only won 30% of Iowa's Democrats. (We lost Iowa to the GOP in the 2004 presidential election.) Josh Marshall has an insightful piece up that takes up this topic in the context of the steady progress of endorsements coming Senator Obama's way from "Red State" Democrats:
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) and Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ). Additionally, he's also been endorsed by Rep. Miller (D-CA), Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and Ned Lamont. But they're in a slightly different category and it's the first four I want to discuss.
The first of these came from Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) who put out word he'd be endorsing Obama the day after New Hampshire. Johnson is a protege of former Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). And Daschle has close ties to Obama -- a lot of operatives in the Daschle world went to Obama after 2004. So when I saw word of the endorsement I figured this was something Daschle or his former staffers had helped put together to help stabilize Obama's fortunes after the New Hampshire loss.
But now you have three others -- Nelson, Napolitano and McCaskill. Nelson and Johnson are from very red states while Napolitano and McCaskill are from swing states.
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 should read the whole piece because Marshall's conclusion is brilliant. But the passage above in on point. Barack Obama is the choice of Democrats who are expanding the playing field, who are expanding the map we compete on, and Hillary Clinton is not.
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.
::
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.
I can only speak to two things, and both stem from my personal experience. First, since I was actively following the race to take back the House in 2006, I can say that articles like this one from Minnesota were typical at the time. Barack Obama did play an active role campaigning for Democrats around the nation, generating excitment and turnout wherever he went. (Senator Clinton, admittedly, was running for reelection in NY.) I can also say, but only anecdotally, that in talking to folks privately from around the country in 2007, it's a frequent "wish" of folks strategizing for Democratic challengers taking on GOP incumbents that Obama would be the nominee. Schaller and Drum aren't keen on crediting that notion with being more than anecdotal. Personally, I can't say. I can only relay that that's what I'm hearing.
The truth is, we can't know what Senator Clinton's appeal would be downticket. Once again, primary voters will have to use common sense. I would point to Clinton's New Hampshire speech, once again, as an example of contrast in this regard. Clinton's New Hampshire speech was a rallying cry within the party; Obama's Iowa speech was an appeal to the nation to expand the party. That is a mere observation, but it's hard to offer much else when we are talking about predicting future results.
::
Criticism six: Senator Clinton was wrong on the single most important issue of our day, Iraq
This is a debate which has raged through the netroots for years, I am not going to pretend to add much light to it now. 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 is a good example:
When Senate Democrats called on President Bush last month to explain the conditions and establish a schedule for withdrawing U.S. forces, Clinton offered backroom advice on the language but let others take the lead on the Senate floor. When Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) called for removing all U.S. troops from Iraq over the next six months, the New York senator told reporters she was opposed. When her advisers were later asked whether she supports a two-year phased withdrawal advocated by a liberal think tank and embraced by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, they demurred.
Faced with rising pressure to join the intensifying debate over an exit strategy and Bush's policies, the politician many think will seek the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008 chose as her medium a 1,600-word letter outlining her views, recently e-mailed to constituents and supporters.
In the e-mail, Clinton took responsibility for her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, while leaving open whether she would have opposed it, given what is now known about faulty intelligence and mismanagement by the administration. She pummeled Bush for his conduct of the war itself but left murky how long she believes U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. As she told Kentucky Democrats earlier this month, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."
This 2004 Clinton appearance on Larry King live is also illuminating.
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!
::
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. 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?
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.
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.
For us Democrats, this is not a simple topic. For many Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton are a beloved and admirable couple. The first part of this diary made clear that Senator Clinton is clearly someone with the skills and leadership to seek the presidency and an admirable track record of public service. For other Democrats, including many of us in the grassroots and netroots of the party, the Clinton style of fundraising, DLC rhetoric and party stewardship represent the opposite of the party reform we think the Democratic Party needs.
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. The Clintons seem, at times like they will do anything, and betray any principle, to win. As we saw in the 90s, that approach can scorch the earth and damage our party.
::
Senator Clinton tolds us a great deal with her victory speech in New Hampshire. She elucidated the core message and rationale for her campaign: that the arc of her career in public service should return her to the White House.
Clearly, public service has motivated Senator Clinton through her lifelong career as an agent of change and an advocate for health care, education, children and families. She is currently serving with great distinction as the twice-elected United States Senator from New York.
Should Democratic primary voters choose Senator Clinton to be our nominee?
In my opinion, given the evidence above, no.
In significant ways, Senator Clinton would not make the best nominee. She would not expand the playing field and change the map, she would not bring new voters into the process, her campaign has a significant and permanent dilemma in conveying a message of change, her candidacy would lock us into the Red State/Blue State partisan electoral battlefield and force us to run a 2004 Rove-style turnout campaign, she may not help us downticket, and it is possible that her high disapproval rating would hurt her given the personal nature of her campaign.
Further, Senator Clinton's campaign is inextricably tied to the legacy of her husband's Presidency, his role in the Democratic Party and the Clinton style of politics. Nominating Senator Clinton when that chapter in our history seemed to be closed, would be inviting the media to characterize the Democratic Party as looking backwards when, in fact, that is the exact opposite of the task at hand.
Finally, Senator Clinton has generated precisely the wrong rationale for her campaign. Senator Clinton's core message is the wrong message for the Democratic Party to send from Denver in 2008. Clinton's message is about her, not us; she's not talking about this moment in history, she's talking about her moment in history. That does not belittle Senator Clinton's many talents and accomplishments or deny the likelihood that she will continue to serve admirably as Senator from New York, perhaps proving a worthy successor to Edward Kennedy as a lawmaker known for advancing legislation that makes a difference in the lives of everyday people.
However, Senator Clinton showed with that speech in New Hampshire that she should not be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in 2008.
Please, watch that speech again.