Bill Clinton tells the Hillary Origin Story
 |
| Lovestruck, supportive Bill Clinton |
Bill Clinton filled in the story for Hillary. Young people see Hillary only after she became a very powerful woman--activist First Lady, US Senator, Secretary of State, world-class celebrity. Anyone under 40 came into the Hillary movie in the middle, missing the backstory opening scenes. Those scenes are important to show because it gives viewers/voters a narrative for understanding their current motivation.
Opponents try to show the politician has bad motives. Republicans say Hillary and Bill are shakedown artists, using political celebrity to raise money for themselves with charities just being a sham. This story works best if it starts with Hillary in the White House, a powerful woman attempting to exercise political power even though she was not elected. Democrats show "Made in China" tags, talk about Trump "University", and talk about Trump as a playboy inheritor of a fortune to show that Trump is a spoiled brat bully con man hypocrite, pretending to care about America when in fact he is completely self serving and doing the over-hyped sales jobs he has done all his life, this time on the voters not the hapless victims of Trump University.
If politicians do not create their own origin stories then the opposition will create ugly ones for them. Nearly every candidate did it as part of their opening remarks in New Hampshire Town Hall meetings:
Carly presents herself as a lowly secretary in a realty office, who through dint of hard work and diversion misstep of a single year in law school, which she hated, she went to business school , found her real talent, and became a great CEO.
Cruz was the son of a broken home, reunited thanks to his father's conversion to Christianity, made great by the grace of God.
Christie was the son of Sicilian mom whose family was forceful and direct, which made him the blunt US Attorney able to prosecute terrorists.
Trump was mentored by his father, educated at the world's greatest business school, and handed the company in his early 20s in order to build it into the great empire that it is now.
Hillary, in New Hampshire, did not mention her middle class to Wellesley origins but instead borrowed her mother's history as young teenager on her own, saying that poverty and work ethic was Hillary's touchstone.
 |
| Hillary then. I was a Yale when they were. We never met. |
Something very special. Bill Clinton told the story of young Hillary. He positioned Hillary as the awe-inspiring object of his affection, the woman too good for him, someone who rejected his marriage proposals twice. Rachel Maddow criticized this portion of the speech, but I think incorrectly. She said it was too long and that no one cared about their courtship, a courtship that necessarily had Bill describing Bill, not Hillary, and therefore once again inserting himself awkwardly into her political narrative. I disagree. He was putting Hillary on a pedestal, the distant object of quest. A question in the minds of voters for a second dose of Clinton is whether this is the step down or the step up. He was positioning Hillary not as a watered-down version of Bill-the-President, but as the improvement, the one harder to get. Bill was the warmup act. Hillary is the headliner.
Lifelong liberal activist. He then listed her long involvement in Legal Services, in Children's Defense, in de-segregation, in the variety of liberal causes that consumed her during her 20s and 30s when she was the struggling political outsider. Bill menitioned her first house: the 1,100 square foot little brick house. This, too, was useful. Newcomers to Hillary know her only as a person making $200,000 speeches and living in big houses in tony NY neighborhoods. She used to be poor and struggling. They had a mortgage: $175 a month. Bill Clinton positioned Hillary into the same role as the disaffected young Sanders activists: liberal, struggling, outside the establishment looking in, and poor.
Hillary for Change. And Bill said she was effective in making changes. Hillary has been generally locked into the role of "establishment" and more of the same-old thing. Bill Clinton attempted to change that. She has been making change. Hillary is a reformer. Hillary means new and improved.
Republicans for 35 years have been critical of Hillary-the-liberal-activist. It is part of why hating-Hillary is the one unifying theme for Republicans. The problem for Hillary is that Republicans believe she is a liberal but liberal progressives do not. They think she is a moderate and maybe even a neo-hawk conservative, not better than a Republican.
Bill Clinton attempted to remind Democrats of what Republicans know: Hillary is a lifelong liberal agent of change. It is why Republicans fear her and why Sanders voters should feel OK about supporting her.
3 comments:
Inspiring but Non-Responsive Speeches
I have found almost all of the DNC speeches inspiring to my Democrat blood, but universally unresponsive to the central issues framed by Republicans-- Hillary's judgment, integrity and open borders. While Trump tries to persuade undecideds of Hillary's "incompetence", that has gone nowhere. Of all the voter interviews I have watched (Sanderites and independents), I have heard only one consistent line of criticism: "she's a lying establishment politician with bad judgment and open borders". To the effective Republican narrative embodied in their chants of "crooked Hillary, lock her up, and open borders", neither her husband nor Michelle were responsive. No part of those inspiring speeches contained the message that she is honest and did not violate law or good judgment with her email practices and denials. The FBI director's assault on her has gone unanswered at the convention so far. To Sanders and independent voters who say they they are having a hard time swallowing fear of Trump as the reason to vote for a corrupt establishment politician, no speech has thus far been responsive. In fact, fear of Trump is the body and substance of our strategy to win, yet our policy elites decided that neither Bill nor Michelle would attack Trump by name. This, in my view, is a crucial mistake. Leaving the Trump bashing to Hillary is to leave our most powerful weapon in the hands of one of our least believed voices to address Sanderites and independents. Bill would have had no credibility defending his wife's honesty, nor really can she, but Michelle would have been a powerful character witness for Hillary's honesty. She declined to do that, to say "you can believe whatever Hillary tells you because she is honest". Or have we decided that we can't make that characterization with a straight face? If so, we are in really bad shape.
Joe Biden really lacks the gravitas or stature even within our own party to do much other than inspire Hillary supporters. Thus, my last hope for a direct party superstar response at the convention to the Republican offensive labelled "Crooked Hillary with bad judgment and open borders" is Obama's speech. If he does not say she is honest and did nothing illegal or dangerous with her emails, then no large voice will have. If Obama does not say Hillary is not for open borders, then the convention will close with an open border promise from Democrats, a promise that Obama, the "deporter in chief" himself never embraced. And if Obama will not directly attack Trump by name, which he thusfar has avoided except in comedy at the National Press Club dinner, then our closing tally at the convention to the chief doubts of Sanders supporters and independents will have been this: No response.
I read this installment of Up Close after seeing Obama's speech. If I recall correctly he identified with Bill Clinton, by saying ".....it's safe to say both of us married up....." or words to that effect. Both these men implicitly acknowledging that the women they married made them better men.
I read this installment of Up Close after seeing Obama's speech. If I recall correctly he identified with Bill Clinton, by saying ".....it's safe to say both of us married up....." or words to that effect. Both these men implicitly acknowledging that the women they married made them better men.
Post a Comment