Wednesday
Apr202016
A Victory for the "Me Generation"
By Marie
I listened to Clinton's victory speech last night, and my immediate reaction was, "Damn, that woman needs a better speechwriter." But this morning I read the transcript, linked below, & I didn't see anything wrong with the words. It was the delivery.
Clinton excuses herself as not being a "natural politician" like her husband & President Obama. But that claim is as false as it is a dig at Bill & Obama. She is a natural politician in the worst sense: she curries favor with those who can fill her campaign coffers, she manipulates facts to the extent that they constitute lies, she is the paradigm of the "Me generation."
The ways she is not a natural politician is in her carelessness -- her assumptions that the rules other must follow don't apply to her (private e-mails), her secrecy (her 1993 healthcare initiative), her rolling revisions when the facts don't back her up, her failure to think thru & follow thru on the outcomes when she does get the result she wants (Libya). And her carelessness is reflected in her speech deliveries -- even when she says the right words her speechwriter puts in front of her, she comes across as manipulative & selfish. There is nothing endearing or laudable about her.
The idea that Bill Clinton & Barack Obama are "naturally" better speakers is also a crock. They study their craft. You can hear it in Obama's speeches; he borrows the style of black preachers. He didn't just come to his style because of the color of his skin, for Pete's sake; he practiced.
The same with Bill: there is an anecdote in a book by David Maraniss (I think it is) where he relates how Bill Clinton practiced for hours copying Ronald Reagan's style. He got videotapes of Reagan's speeches & studied Reagan's mannerisms, right down to his gestures. According to Maraniss, Clinton came running from his practice room one day & said, "I got it, I finally got it!" What did he get? -- a particular hand gesture Reagan made.
But these talented speakers are talented because they want to connect to voters. They may not really "feel your pain," but they at least remember how the pain feels, & they want your vote enough to call up those memories of their own hard times. Hillary Clinton suppresses whatever pain she has felt (and like all of us, she has feelings); that's what makes her such a wooden speaker. Actually "feeling your pain" would mean letting down her guard, letting her seem less royal & special & better than you & me.
Describing the 2016 election as the "most important in recent history" is something of a crock. From the standpoint of court appointments & a few other matters, it is very important. But the fact is that in November, we will have a choice between two of the worst nominees in modern history. This will be the "Me generation" come to its ignoble end. I shudder to think of what kind of presidency is in the offing.
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (11)
"Describing the 2016 election as the "most important in recent history" is something of a crock. From the standpoint of court appointments & a few other matters, it is very important. But the fact is that in November, we will have a choice between two of the worst nominees in modern history."
I'm sorry, Marie, but I don't see how you come to this conclusion. And I don't see how Sanders would be a better nominee than Clinton. I recommend yesterday's post by Tom Levenson at Balloon-Juice. Here are the first two paragraphs:
Might as well lay out my view. I voted for Hillary in Massachusetts. I urge every New York Democratic voter do the same today. I support her going forward, not simply as the likely nominee around whom we should rally, but because I think she will make a significantly better president than Bernie ever would.
Presidenting is much more than asserting the ideal campaign positions. It’s more than policy. Day to day it involves an enormous range of skills in management, listening, decision processing and more. And there’s the matter of winning the general in the first place. I think Hillary bests Bernie on most of what I want in a president — which is to say mine is an affirmative preference, not a lesser-of-two-evils judgment.
I feel your ennui, Marie. Our primary/caucus system of selecting the candidates has muted the voice of many independents and has left the power to the old-guard in the Democratic Party. I know an independent run by Sanders would probably lead to a Republican winning, but as well as he is polling, maybe not this year. People want a change but the current way we elect leaders makes it hard to do it (including the way we finance elections, gerrymander districts and make it harder to vote). The current Democratic Party is not a proponent of the change we need so it looks like their candidate will just be more of the same. We will still be left as unsatisfied as we were with Obama, but still happier than we would be with any of the GOP candidates.
Did 'watch/listen' to the entire videoed HRC acceptance speech and get what Marie means. The performance comes across as a poorly rehearsed SNL skit! Hillary has come quite a way since her previous runs...(I know it is frivolous to comment on such as hair & dress, but betcha this time around a friend, someone such as Anna Wintour at Vogue has had an influence on her appearance, which shows a far more professional attire). If only the same applied to her delivery of speeches from the near constant bobble-head nodding, ditto the smiling, the too-wide mouth open guffaws, to an overwhelming feel of Cheerleading 101.
Tone it down, no need to grin through the delivery of what are serious and appropriate topics, "We-can-make-tough-choices, but-we'll-have-happy,-smiley-faces-doing it!" Perhaps a bit more BRF (Bitchy Resting Face) is needed!
...or more practice in front of the mirror.
Hillary is the woman that sent her daughter, Chelsea, out to lie about Sander's health plan, claiming it would take insurance away from those aided by the ACA.
The coming election is not going to result in the New Deal that the Country needs.
"The truth you speak doth lack some gentleness,
And time to speak it in: you rub the sore,
When you should bring the plaster."
Whether the plaster can smooth over the cracks is something we might be arguing about forever. I, for one, as I've said before, am looking forward to our first female presidency. I'm especially interested in how she is going to interact with Congress and I'm hoping she will be more effective than Obama and certainly more than Sanders whose demeanor has rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way. I'm assuming here that she already has it locked up––perhaps I'm assuming too soon?
@PD Pepe: Technically, Bernie still has a path forward, but that's pretty much pie-in-the-sky, especially because Clinton is polling very well in states that have upcoming primaries. I have no doubt Clinton will be the nominee.
Marie
Democrats whose principles were more important than their gutter-fighting skills: Al Smith; Adlai Stevenson; Hubert Humphrey; Walter Mondale.
I'd like another President like Obama. We're not getting one. I'll be content with one who takes on the GOP bullshit. Maybe HRC is capable of that.
The real downside I see with HRC is that she has so many strap-hangers, as well as good talent, in her entourage. Does she have the guts to cut the strap-hangers loose? Some of them are not just worthless, but create rather than solve problems as they seek to "support" and "protect" her.
The Times Editorial Board has a throw-away appeasement piece for Sanders and Kasich supporters: " stay in the race " that you will ultimately lose.
Many comments are intriguing as I found many 'known' individuals posting with their views harshly different than their stances on other topics in the past. Several quite surprising. The Bernie or Bust contingent is adament and threaten a write-in for Bernie, or Jill Stein, or for anyone but Hillary. The Supreme Court be damned!
Then there's Jonathan Chait: Bernie Sanders Has Lost the Primary and It’s: " Making Him a Little Crazy " and you can imagine the comments to that.
Hillary is polarizing, that's for sure. That said, she will get my vote if she's the nominee.
As I've said in the past, I will most definitely be voting for Clinton, but like the last Clinton, it won't be a moment of unalloyed joy.
Hillary, as Marie points out, has demonstrated a knack for causing many of her own problems. I don't know where it comes from, this idea that she doesn't have to follow the rules (even simple ones!), or play fast and loose with the truth, but those exact qualities, that sort of freelance, bushwhacking (in the sense of preferring to strike off into unknown country without safety measures) attribute that has created the stupid, stupid, stupid (and did I say "stupid"?), e-mail clusterfuck, is precisely the sort of proclivity that can destroy a presidency.
Hillary is not to blame for Monica, most certainly, but the same sort of cavalier approach that forced Bill Clinton--unnecessarily!--to battle impeachment, can kill an administration dead. And if elected she will start with a penumbra of hatred from the right that will dwarf the their Obama Hatred (™). They will be watching. And, of course, they'll be making shit up to beat the band. To anyone else, I'd say "Then don't give them anything real to work with." But Hillary? It seems she can't help it.
Maybe she feels like she's owed a little leeway for all the shit she's been through. Okay. She has been through a lot. They DID go after her and her husband. There WAS a giant right-wing conspiracy. But a good (not to mention great) president has to overcome that stuff.
I hope I'm exaggerating my fears, but if she gets elected then crashes and burns over something stupid, it will perhaps destroy the chances for any Democrats who follow.
She will be nominee. Hopefully she learns something from the run up to the convention, her battles with Bernie. I hope she wins and does a spectacular job, but I've always had the nagging sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I‘m of the notion that support for Bernie has, to a great extent, been I‘m of the notion that support for Bernie has, to a great extent, been created by Bernie, and has not necessarily come at Hillary’s expense. With a Clinton candidacy the danger is that Bernie’s supporters will abandon their new-found enthusiasm for Bernie’s movement and forgo participation in future political activities. The result, again, will be lower voter turnout, resulting in a Presidential race much closer than it should be, and down-ballot Democratic candidates continuing to struggle against the gerrymandering and election manipulations currently in place as a result of the refocusing of Republican big donors toward State and Local politics.
This is what I thought after last night (with apologies to Orson Welles):
Bernie: Come on, read my future for me.
Clio (Muse of History): You haven't got any.
Bernie: Hmm? What do you mean?
Clio: Your future's all used up.