Yes, Hillary does a lot of standing to do her speeches, and she wears little flat shoes. Not high heels, not Nike running shoes, nothing that looks like it has any support.
But this post is about another kind of flat footedness: her failure to respond to a political attack in a way that dismisses it.
Trump does this way, way better than Hillary. Trump was accused of being angry. He responds in a friendly voice saying that you bet he is angry, angry about America losing and that when we start winning he will be happy. Trump is accused of being unrealistic about Mexico building a border wall. He responds by saying Mexico needs us more than we need them and they will build the wall because he will make them. In both cases, he OWNS the criticism and turns it into an affirmation of his brand.)
Hillary does not. She doesn't do it naturally and with all the staff she presumably has she isn't getting someone to create the message judo that she can deliver to turn the criticism into an affirmation of why she is good.
Examples of weak answers in this recent campaign include her non-response to Trump saying that Hillary was in no position to cry "sexism" since she enabled Bill. And her weak evasive answer regarding the speech transcripts. "Well, I will look into it" communicates that she may have something to hide.
The correct answer in the debate would have been. "Hey, nothing would please me more. I hope I said something interesting and important. I'm not sure who owns the transcripts or videos or copyrights so you may need to get permission from third parties. Have at them! I just hope they aren't usable as sleep aids for insomniacs!" Or something like that.
The big issue now is her paid speeches. She sounds defensive. She sounds embarrassed. She shouldn't be. Big firms sponsor tents at The Masters. Companies have stadium skyboxes. These are for entertaining clients. Goldman Sachs has conferences all the time on subjects relating to their business, to which corporate leaders and clients are invited. It is a mixture of client schmoozing and celebrity, making people feel good about doing business with Goldman Sachs as opposed to Morgan Stanley.
I got to meet former president Gerald Ford at a conference my company (then called Citigroup) sent me and my wife to in Palm Springs. The company wanted me to feel special for making them a lot of money. One way for them to do that is to pay famous people to show up at events. It gave me something to talk about when I got home--something I am doing right now. I have no idea how much they paid him, but I am sure he wasn't there because he was eager to meet Financial Advisors. "Hello, congratulations on your achievement, Peter. And this is your wife. How delightful."
John Kasich was employed for a couple of years by Lehman Brothers, between his time as a congressman and when he was elected Ohio governor. Katich presumably had some connections and reputation what would help him get entree to Ohio cities and counties considering municipal bonds. Right now Citibank is parading around former US Senator Bob Kerrey somehow to promote their brand.
Ronald Reagan got paid $2,000,000 to go to Japan shortly after leaving office. The press at the time called it the "mashed potato circuit" and snickered at the awestruck Prudential insurance agents who got to see a former president.
I cite the above to make the simple point that former high level politicians have a marketplace value and they often go to work for businesses who want them to tell their stories, to use their contacts, to just show up and thrill people. This is the reality, a bi-partisan reality.
Hillary was part of reality. She didn't do anything weird or unusual. If someone wants to claim that celebrities selling books or making speeches is bad and potentially corrupting they may have a good point, but it is a system wide bipartisan point. A book written by celebrity Oprah or Sarah Palin or Bill O'Reilly will sell more than a book written by John Doe, so a publisher will pay a bigger advance. Reality.
So what should Hillary have said, regarding her speaking fees? She should have thought to herself "What would Trump do?" And then do exactly that. WWTD.
She should own the charge. Say yes. Then make it part of her brand.
Something like: "Yes, it is a reality that people in sports, in music, in Hollywood, and in politics who become well known have an opportunity most people do not have. Publishers want our books and businesses will pay us money to come speak to them and share our insights and observations. Bill and I started out very poor but we have been given this incredible opportunity to get very well paid in the period after our public service. We are so lucky. And grateful Most of the money we have made has gone into the Clinton Foundation to try to meet global needs but some of it has made us prosperous. Bill and I were very aware that President Reagan got some criticism when he made speeches after his presidency, so we recognized the risk that we too would face criticism both from Republicans and from our Democratic friends. But each of us had stories to tell in books and in speeches so we did so. It has enabled us to pursue the agendas we have dedicated our lives to: addressing American and global poverty, eradicating malaria, good things. Progressive things. Bill and I recognize how lucky we are, so, yes, our books and speeches have allowed us to become financially very comfortable ourselves, and it has also allowed us to carry on the work we care so much about."
OK, I will let others make suggestions on a better way of saying it but the elements that are important is that Hillary: 1 acknowledge that it is absolutely true, 2 accept that it is an unusual opportunity given to her and Bill, 3 acknowledge that it is normal widespread behavior, and 4. put it into the context of her brand, Hillary the realist progressive.
Absolutely key is that the tone is "Yes, and here is why it is good", not "Well, only a little" or "I didn't inhale" or "Well, its not all bad."
Trump would own it: "Darned right I made a pile of money. I had five publishers fighting over who would get to do it and I played them against each other. And I made them pay my jet costs at $30,000 an hour to fly up to speak. Jets are so expensive, but I got them to pay me! A great deal for me. I was going to go up to New York anyway, but they paid. I hear Oprah only gets $500,000 for a one hour appearance. I got more than Oprah. Oprah is a great entertainer, really great, but I am going to be a great president and make America great. So I get more. People want to see me, Goldman pays. But you get in free, a tremendous crowd, hah!, Goldman Sachs paid me $600,000 and for them you had to be a hedge fund millionaire, multi-multi millionaire, to get in but all you great people have to be is an American. Or if you are Ted Cruz, Canadian. Ted, are you here? Welcome to America, Ted. Not here. Probably on his dog sled. But it is worth it to me--I love it here, all you tremendous people--because you are all going to vote, right?? Vote for me and America will be, great."
Own it, Hillary. You got rich. It's OK.
 |
| Hillary in Portland |
But this post is about another kind of flat footedness: her failure to respond to a political attack in a way that dismisses it.
Trump does this way, way better than Hillary. Trump was accused of being angry. He responds in a friendly voice saying that you bet he is angry, angry about America losing and that when we start winning he will be happy. Trump is accused of being unrealistic about Mexico building a border wall. He responds by saying Mexico needs us more than we need them and they will build the wall because he will make them. In both cases, he OWNS the criticism and turns it into an affirmation of his brand.)
Hillary does not. She doesn't do it naturally and with all the staff she presumably has she isn't getting someone to create the message judo that she can deliver to turn the criticism into an affirmation of why she is good.
 |
| Financial Firms do these all the time |
Examples of weak answers in this recent campaign include her non-response to Trump saying that Hillary was in no position to cry "sexism" since she enabled Bill. And her weak evasive answer regarding the speech transcripts. "Well, I will look into it" communicates that she may have something to hide.
The correct answer in the debate would have been. "Hey, nothing would please me more. I hope I said something interesting and important. I'm not sure who owns the transcripts or videos or copyrights so you may need to get permission from third parties. Have at them! I just hope they aren't usable as sleep aids for insomniacs!" Or something like that.
The big issue now is her paid speeches. She sounds defensive. She sounds embarrassed. She shouldn't be. Big firms sponsor tents at The Masters. Companies have stadium skyboxes. These are for entertaining clients. Goldman Sachs has conferences all the time on subjects relating to their business, to which corporate leaders and clients are invited. It is a mixture of client schmoozing and celebrity, making people feel good about doing business with Goldman Sachs as opposed to Morgan Stanley.
I got to meet former president Gerald Ford at a conference my company (then called Citigroup) sent me and my wife to in Palm Springs. The company wanted me to feel special for making them a lot of money. One way for them to do that is to pay famous people to show up at events. It gave me something to talk about when I got home--something I am doing right now. I have no idea how much they paid him, but I am sure he wasn't there because he was eager to meet Financial Advisors. "Hello, congratulations on your achievement, Peter. And this is your wife. How delightful."
 |
| Former Senator Bob Kerrey |
Ronald Reagan got paid $2,000,000 to go to Japan shortly after leaving office. The press at the time called it the "mashed potato circuit" and snickered at the awestruck Prudential insurance agents who got to see a former president.
 |
| Reagan got paid, and got criticized for it |
Hillary was part of reality. She didn't do anything weird or unusual. If someone wants to claim that celebrities selling books or making speeches is bad and potentially corrupting they may have a good point, but it is a system wide bipartisan point. A book written by celebrity Oprah or Sarah Palin or Bill O'Reilly will sell more than a book written by John Doe, so a publisher will pay a bigger advance. Reality.
So what should Hillary have said, regarding her speaking fees? She should have thought to herself "What would Trump do?" And then do exactly that. WWTD.
She should own the charge. Say yes. Then make it part of her brand.
Something like: "Yes, it is a reality that people in sports, in music, in Hollywood, and in politics who become well known have an opportunity most people do not have. Publishers want our books and businesses will pay us money to come speak to them and share our insights and observations. Bill and I started out very poor but we have been given this incredible opportunity to get very well paid in the period after our public service. We are so lucky. And grateful Most of the money we have made has gone into the Clinton Foundation to try to meet global needs but some of it has made us prosperous. Bill and I were very aware that President Reagan got some criticism when he made speeches after his presidency, so we recognized the risk that we too would face criticism both from Republicans and from our Democratic friends. But each of us had stories to tell in books and in speeches so we did so. It has enabled us to pursue the agendas we have dedicated our lives to: addressing American and global poverty, eradicating malaria, good things. Progressive things. Bill and I recognize how lucky we are, so, yes, our books and speeches have allowed us to become financially very comfortable ourselves, and it has also allowed us to carry on the work we care so much about."
OK, I will let others make suggestions on a better way of saying it but the elements that are important is that Hillary: 1 acknowledge that it is absolutely true, 2 accept that it is an unusual opportunity given to her and Bill, 3 acknowledge that it is normal widespread behavior, and 4. put it into the context of her brand, Hillary the realist progressive.
Absolutely key is that the tone is "Yes, and here is why it is good", not "Well, only a little" or "I didn't inhale" or "Well, its not all bad."
Trump would own it: "Darned right I made a pile of money. I had five publishers fighting over who would get to do it and I played them against each other. And I made them pay my jet costs at $30,000 an hour to fly up to speak. Jets are so expensive, but I got them to pay me! A great deal for me. I was going to go up to New York anyway, but they paid. I hear Oprah only gets $500,000 for a one hour appearance. I got more than Oprah. Oprah is a great entertainer, really great, but I am going to be a great president and make America great. So I get more. People want to see me, Goldman pays. But you get in free, a tremendous crowd, hah!, Goldman Sachs paid me $600,000 and for them you had to be a hedge fund millionaire, multi-multi millionaire, to get in but all you great people have to be is an American. Or if you are Ted Cruz, Canadian. Ted, are you here? Welcome to America, Ted. Not here. Probably on his dog sled. But it is worth it to me--I love it here, all you tremendous people--because you are all going to vote, right?? Vote for me and America will be, great."
Own it, Hillary. You got rich. It's OK.
No comments:
Post a Comment