Hillary Clinton In Nashua

Just got back from the Hillary Clinton return to New Hampshire rally at the Nashua airport. The hangar where it was held wasn't huge, and was made even smaller by what seemed like a gigantic stage, but it was full with a mix of young and old, men, women and kids (I was surprised how young the crowd was, actually.) I wouldn't say there was a real buzz of excitement in the air as the crowd anticipated the Clintons' arrival, but as signs were passed out (emblazoned with one word: READY) and as chants were led ("Ready to Change, Ready to Lead!",) the excitement did grow until the place erupted as all of the Clintons were introduced.

Bill took the microphone briefly to introduce Hillary and said he's never been more proud of her than during her speech last night. He also said they got in at 4:30am last night, "my girls look great, don't you think!?" Huge applause. Oh yeah, and he got in a little dig at Iowa: "New Hampshire is going to be given the chance to prove that you are the first primary."

Hillary Clinton took the stage and I have to say, you'd never know she didn't win last night. The word unflappable comes to mind. The event was half rally, half townhall meeting where she, after making the case for herself generally, addressed her solutions to issues from bringing the troops home, to healthcare to ending our dependence on foreign oil and seemed to have a full stump speech for each issue. It was actually very impressive.

The case for her candidacy that she's making breaks down to two questions: 1. "Who will be the best president on day one?" and 2. "Who will best be able to withstand the Republican attack machine to get elected in the first place?" Nothing we haven't heard before, but the framing felt different. There was MUCH more change rhetoric and a lot less experience rhetoric, but the subtext (and sometimes the text) of the entire event was very much about experience. As the chant said, it's about being READY to lead and so she is asking New Hampshire, actually, challenging New Hampshire, to scrutinize the track records of both her and Barack Obama (yes, from her perspective, she has one obstacle to the nomination and one alone) to judge who'll bring about change in the future by looking at the change they've brought in the past. In other words, if the Clinton camp has anything to say about it, we may be in for far more scrutiny of Obama's record.

One thing Clinton made a point of addressing during the event is her electability, an issue that is incredibly important for her to dilute as a concern for voters. Despite what the media would have you believe, Obama's victory last night wasn't entirely about change, it was also about electability -- many Iowans feared going for Clinton would be a repeat of their 2004 decision to choose experience only to find the candidate was eminently beatable after all and I get the sense that people are really starting to worry about the "I can never vote for Hillary" crowd. So she played up that she's been "the most vetted, the most investigated and it turns out, the most innocent." (Again, a reference to her experience without saying the word.) She also boasted of her ability to win over Republicans and Independents in New York. I suspect Clinton will be addressing this much more over the next 5 days. Also expect her to co-opt some of Obama's post-partisan language -- today she actually said she doesn't like "red state/blue state" language, "we are one country..." which seemed a rather brazen effort to appropriate his rhetoric.

OK, off to an Obama rally, more later...



Display:


Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

If Hillary is smart--and she is--she will adopt Obama's message and defeat him.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

That wouldn't be all that smart, in my opinion. It's not just the rhetoric that matters. Obama has the post-partisan types in his camp rather solidly, since it has defined his political approach throughout his career and life, while Clinton is notoriously partisan (right-wing conspiracy, etc.). She is unlikely to sell herself as a credible uniter in a short period of time. Hillary's best bet is to just seem likeable and genuine (as many who know her personally attest her to be), which will erase, to some extent, the "divisive" label that plagues her. Also, she needs more consistency in her message, and going from "turn up the heat" on republicans to a non-partisan sales pitch is likely to increase the perception of insincerity and poll-driven panderer.

Of course, I don't want her to do well against Obama, so I'm not really suggesting that she take this advice. But, since there is no danger of her following my advice, I don't mind sharing it.


by DPW on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

Heh... same boat - and I agree.

Rather than coopting, she ought to be playing a Rovian bit of "run against your opponents' strength/on your supposed weakness".

Were I HRC, I'd be combating the Obama's indie cred with sharp "how can you talk about bipartisanship after X, Y, and Z"?   Of course, her biggest problem there is that, at least so far as foreign policy goes, she was a party to some of the problems.

What she ought to do, rather than trying to steal Obama's party line, is steal Edwards... tap into the anger and partisanship that's driving the blogosphere.  Say point blank that she's NOT a compromiser, that unfortunately, we DO live in a world where one party clearly wants war without end, profits without end, and an end to the middle class -- and one just cannot compromise with those values, they must be defeated.

I, too, am glad she certainly isn't going to listen to me because Obama or Edwards - I'm fine with either.


by zonk on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (2.00 / 1)

This is good news from the ground


by world dictator on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:22:39 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

Notice how Hillary continues to make a pitch based almost entirely on her, saying she is best prepared because of her achievements and her time in the spotlight. While Obama makes a pitch based on a vision of the future. This really became clear to me watching Obama's speech last night - one of them is candidate-based, the other is movement-based.


by animated on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:23:51 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

heh

She "addressed her solutions to issues from bringing the troops home, to healthcare to ending our dependence on foreign oil and seemed to have a full stump speech for each issue. It was actually very impressive."


by souvarine on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (2.00 / 0)

Oh please. Barack Obama's movement is centered around Barack Obama. "he's the fresh face, he has good judgment,he's the change agent",etc,etc.

I can;t believe having tracked Obama from his 2004 speech to now that you can say with a straight face that Barack Obama is not Barack Obama's main selling point.


by world dictator on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

Right, they are both "celebrity" candidates, and Barack probably edges Hillary on this point. But how would you describe the rationale they provide for their candidacies?

Hillary mostly lays down a laundry list of her achievements and argues that she's the best person for the job. Barack does a much better job than anyone in the field, Dem or Repub IMO, of painting a narrative of how the country would change if he were elected.

He's very consistent in describing a process of appealing to independents and Repubs, ending pointless slash and burn politics, finally the country stops infighting and is able to address challenges. Behind this, the message of national unity is backed up by an appeal to postracial identity politics. Laugh at it, call it simplistic or gimmicky if you want (and of course its a little bit of schtick - all politics is), but it's a coherent narrative with a beginning, middle and end that appeals to people on an emotional level. Hillary fails to provide anything like this.


by animated on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (2.00 / 0)

Actually, I agree. Barack Obama's campaign is about Barack Obama. That's because he's running for President. If he were a campaign surrogate promoting another candidate, then it would not be about him. It would be about that candidate. But since he's in the race, as himself, it's about him. He's trying to be elected.

Ok. Now that's finally settled! Barack Obama is running for President. He hasn't inhabited another person's body, and he is not projecting himself into willing vessel pods or conducting alien anal probes. Great. Let's move on.


by mcdave on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Run the numbers. (none / 0)

She's going to be very hard to beat. 30 more primaries between now and Feb 5 and none with the possible exception of NH with the small scale and intensity of IA. She's going to win 3-4 of the January contests and then all but a couple of Feb 5. If she loses NH it will ding her no doubt about it but it won't be fatal by any means and I'd say the odds are she's going to win now that the Republican race is competitive and likely to attract a lot of indie attention.  


by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM EST

Re: Run the numbers. (none / 0)

So this means that Hillary only does well in an political race where she doesn't actually meet with voters?

It may be true- but I wouldn't consider this a positive.


d
by d on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:35:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Run the numbers. (none / 0)

You seriously think that Hillary can cruise to the nomination if she loses not only Iowa but also NH?  Respectfully, that's just crazy.  If she loses both of those states, there is no way she wins South Carolina.  If she loses Iowa, NH, and South Carolina I don't see a  viable path to the nomination.  When, from a historical perspective, has any candidate won the nomination after a single different candidate won all of the early races?  Here's a hint -- it's never happened before.  

All that being said, Hillary could certainlyl still win NH.  If she does, then we'll be in for a knock down drag out nomination fight.  


by HSTruman on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good for her... (none / 0)

...that she didn't repeat her speech last night.

The part of her speech that I heard last night sounded like she was withdrawing from the race.


d
by d on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:27:40 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (2.00 / 1)

I tried to gauge the reactions of some of my work colleagues today, since Obama's win was obviously big news that actually penetrated their politically unaware brains.  A number of them had the reaction that he seemed like an impressive enough guy, but they weren't sure whether he really had the experience to run the federal government, to appoint the right people, and to make the whole thing work.

It sort of drove home that while Obama has great name recognition, for a lot of people, this is going to be the first time they actually start picturing him as President and trying to figure out if he can play that role.  So I think it's important for him to try and close the deal with voters who may like his story, but may be wavering on the whole Commander-in-Chief thing.  And for Hillary, I still think the opportunity is there to plant doubts, notwithstanding that the people of Iowa have already rendered their verdict.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:32:01 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

She's tough and an experienced campaigner. It's not going to be an easy road winning in New Hampshire, but if anyone can go from the inevitable candidate, to third place in Iowa, and come back with a win in New Hampshire, it's her. I would say more than anything she has to hit electability, because if Obama wins New Hampshire there is no way she'll be able to make the arguement as being the more electable Democrat after that, whether it's true or not.


by Christopher Lib on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton In Nashua (none / 0)

What is all this experience she has?  She won an open Senatorial seat abandoned by the Democratic fixture that was Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 2000.  She was reelected in 2006 along with virtually every Democratic incumbant in the country.  Those are the only two elections for public office that she herself was the subject for.  Yeah, her husband went through a bunch of his own elections, but Bill had a way of making his elections through all the slop--her career was not what was at stake.

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in '96 and was reelected in 2002.  In 2000 he ran for Congress and lost.  In 2004 he was elected to take the Senatorial seat abandoned by Republican Peter Fitzgerald.  That's four elections for public office, three of which he won.

I don't really see an experience advantage on either side.  If people really want experience first, they should vote/have voted for Biden or Dodd.


Matt Flynn
by Flynnieous on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama winning (none / 0)

Put another way:

1. He beat Alan Keyes (an out of state candidate put into the Illinois election at the last minute.)

  1. He lost a run for a House seat.
  2. Won two state races out of Chicago.

I will say say is a great speaker, I have thought that since 2004.


by del on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:26:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great report Todd (none / 0)

Simply outstanding. You seem to be at your best in these types of post.
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:05:32 PM EST

Most innocent (none / 0)

Here's a FRIENDLY (key word) request:

Does someone want to explain "most innocent" to me? I'm not sure I get it. I'm not saying she's guilty. I'm saying I don't know what the heck that means.

Help me please....Mollie? Thinkingdem (if you're back from killing members of the media)? Susanhu?


by mcdave on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST

Re: Most innocent (2.00 / 1)

It means the Republicans spent over $50 million investigating Bill and Hillary and all they found was a blowjob. She was cleared of all charges, they have nothing on her.


by souvarine on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most innocent (none / 0)

I think the question concerns what is meant by the superlative "most." Is she implying that one of her opponents' is less innocent? Maybe it just snuck in there and means nothing, but I found it curious as well.


by DPW on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most innocent (none / 0)

I took it to be compared to all the guilty pleas and ongoing investigations of Republicans. Obama and Edwards have not been investigated, so they can't have been found more or less innocent of anything.


by souvarine on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.