In December of 2006 I would have advised Hillary to hire a speech writer

[saltpoint]

of the caliber required to approach John Kennedy's level.

She is not as compelling a speaker as John Kennedy. Or Robert Kennedy. Or Mario Cuomo.

Or Barack Obama.

But she could have positioned herself as a candidate driven by ideas had she hired someone to help her express them.

"I'm Your Girl" is a bumpersticker, not an idea.

Since Feb. 5th, the tone of the Clinton campaign has tilted toward what's wrong with her opponent and not what's admirable in her. That's not from Obama's camp, or the media -- that's from Wolfson / Carville / Penn et al.

--Plagiarism the week of the Wisconsin primary.

--Drug experimentation before that from Billy Shaheen.

--Hillary herself telling a reporter that she doesn't think Obama was a Muslim, "...as far as I know," as if she had no idea on earth what church her opponent belonged to.

--her framing herself and McCain as patriots and publicly dismissing Obama as bringing a mere "speech" to the table.

--And Aunt Geraldine Ferraro braying like a jackass on FOX News to John Gibson about Obama's being where he is owing to is skin color.

All of that, and more, generated from Hillary Clinton's campaign.

A gifted speech writer -- and they are readily available all over the country -- could have put a focus onto her candidacy that she evidently felt her celebrity obviated. She had tremendous name recognition and no ideas to match that celebrity.

Why did she not hire a gifted man or woman to frame her as a thoughtful, visionary candidate? This was a campaign rolling in money all of last year. She's broke now, and in fact in significant debt. Ideas and language don't pay the bills, but they can generate inspiration and support which politically reduce that debt. The Obama campaign is rich in ideas and has plenty of cash on-hand. The Clinton effort is bankrupt on both counts.

Progressives do not discount Clinton's work in progressive causes, but do not perceive her as committed to them in the way they honor Obama's neighborhood building in greater Chicago or Edwards' work with labor issues, to cite two examples. They do not feel that she can match Biden or Richardson in command of international experience. She lacks the fire of Dennis Kucinich as well as his genuinely-earned profile for taking on big Corporations. What in anything she has said for the last year or so rivals anything Mike Gravel has said far better on the same issues?

Clinton is perceived as a "Me" candidate and not a "We" candidate. Grassroots folks flocked to Obama and Edwards in Iowa in January in record numbers significant enough to reverse a YEAR of commanding first-place polling for Hillary Clinton. She finished third. Had Vilsack and/or Bayh remained in the race she might have finished 5th. I wonder if she's paid off all those snow shovels.

She's broke. No one in the media took that money. Barack Obama didn't take it. The Kennedys didn't take it. Russ Feingold didn't take it. Jimmy Carter didn't take it. She lost it. She spent it unwisely and now it's gone and she's in the hole several million dollars.

A speech writer -- a very good one -- might not have won Hillary Clinton the 2008 Democratic nomination. But it would have made her candidacy compelling as it would have grafted her successes as a person onto the context of the times in which she sought support.

[Yael]

1. And because she didn't, we got to see the TRUE makeup of HRC

Before buyers remorse set in.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

2. Hi, Yael. It does seem that unchallenged all of 2007, Hillary-as-Frontrunner

went fairly smoothly, but in the week prior to the Iowa caucus, her internal polling must have told her that Obama and Edwards were both in stronger positions, and that she might finish behind both of them there, despite Vilsack's work on her behalf and the Des Moines REGISTER's endorsement.

And that's what happened.

[Yael]

3. Heya OC! It showed us that she can't stand up to opposition and come out ahead

She doesn't have the political makeup for it. All she knows is to fight dirty and hope to be the last one standing with her 50.00001%

Not what we need in a leader, IMO.

[saltpoint]

4. Having what it takes to be president is an interesting aspect of why

voters choose as they do.

Early in his presidency a reporter asked John Kennedy what he believed might prepare someone for the job.

Kennedy said, "Nothing." He said that he felt nothing can prepare someone for a job of such pressure and complexity, and that if a problem was solvable easily, it is solved easily at a far lower level than the Oval Office.

I always found that observation to be kind of breath-taking, and by degree, it gives me some insight into what might make some politicians tick.

I think Senator Clinton was ill-served by her campaign strategists and her husband's political affiliations, and she might have taken steps to become independent of both.

_ _ _

Good to see you on the boards this morning.

[Berry Cool]

15. JFK was very wise on that point.

I think so, anyway.

I also don't think the presidency is an apprenticeship. You can't learn it by looking over someone else's shoulder. Any number of vice presidents who then became not very great presidents should have taught us that. But instead we had someone essentially saying "Vote for me because I had eight years of experience in watching someone else be president from up close."

[K Gardner]

5. It was voiced on MTP that some in her campaign feel it was mismanaged to the point of being fraud...

Excellent OP, OC !! K*R :hi:

[saltpoint]

6. Hi, K Gardner. And thanks, and I did read the transcript of the MTP

roundtable.

Which really was some sturdy commentary. "Fraud" is strong talk, and it may be we learn more about the doings from the cash angle of that campaign in coming weeks.

Happy Sunday. Good to see you.

[scarletwoman]

7. Very good post! "Clinton is perceived as a "Me" candidate and not a "We" candidate." Word. (nt)

[nichomachus]

8. Her website slogan says it all

"Help make history."

Interesting, especially as opposed to Obama's "Yes we can." Obama's is inclusive and empowering. Hillary's is all about her making history -- and we can be her little helpers. Even if she had said "Let's make history," it would have been better, but still the focus would have been on the idea that the entire goal of the campaign was to get her into the history books, not to empower the people to do anything about changing things.

I know the HDL -- Hillary Defense League -- will start shouting that this is making mountains out of molehills, but really the language you choose, especially as a campaign slogan, speaks volumes.

[saltpoint]

9. Hi, nichomachus. Yes -- language matters, and Obama's gift for it

exposes Clinton's lack of that ability.

When she attacked him for "plagiarism" of Gov. Patrick's words, she was attempting a favored ploy of Atwater / Rove Republicans, namely attack and question your opponent at his identified strength, thus attempt to remove it as a plus on his side of the ledger. Witness Max Cleland in Georgia's Senate race. Someone likely advised her to lead the assault on Obama on language. That person should never have been hired in the first place as her adviser, and once hired and revealed as Rovian, should have been shown the door.

The week of the plagiarism charge was the Wisconsin Primary. In Madison, 1 week out, 20,000 people came to hear Barack Obama at the Kohl Center; 4,500 attended the Hillary Clinton event at the Monona Terrace Convention hall. Who needs polling?

[Berry Cool]

14. Good point.

Obama's campaign slogan was never anything approaching "Help me be the first black president." I would not have found that message inspiring. I also don't find "Help make me the first woman president" inspiring. I want to vote for the best candidate, regardless of gender, color, etc.

I also didn't want to vote for the person who relied on memories of when her husband was president to try to make me feel warm fuzzies about her being president. In fact, it was a turnoff, because I sensed she was trying to ride on his coattails.

The way I see it, Hillary's biggest support has come from people who remember Bill's presidency and the Clintons in general fondly, and who want to see a woman president, period. I needed more.

[NanceGreggs]

10. Excellent analysis, OC!

:kick: & REC'D!!!

[saltpoint]

11. Thank you, Ms. Greggs, and good mornin'.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

12. Go eyeball "her" OpEd. Just look at it on the level of punctuation.

A quarter of a billion dollars and THIS is what they bought?!

This is bad management on speed skates. It argues a kind of rigid willfulness real leaders don't allow themselves.

What I mean is this: in order to let someone hear you and then, turn around and shape your voice, you have to be willing to let go a little. To step away from your own mindset enough and to trust someone enough to hear how they're "composing" you. Even if your ear isn't musical, you need to be able to extend yourself far enough to cooperate with a tune up.

I think you've fingered it, Old Crusoe. The failure of the Clinton campaign to produce a coherent, attractive voice for her that a good speech writer could compose tells us a lot about a more fundamental failure -- the lack of a vigorous, elastic center to the whole project. There was no synthesizing there there.

[saltpoint]

13. Jesus, sfexpat -- you should have done this post and not me.

Surgically worded and lean and true.

The History channel or C-Span or somebody will occasionally run John Kennedy's public addresses. He seems to have embodied the very things you cite in trusting others for input into his total composition. An address is the public face of a candidate or president, and Hillary Clinton's dismissal of language as suspect was a grave misstep.

There will be a woman president, likely sooner rather than later, and my guess is that she will learn from Clinton's missteps.

[EFerrari]

16. Not at all. I didn't get it until you said it.

lol

I remember when I thought people who used speech writers were cheating in some way. Nothing could really be further from the truth if the thing is done right, right? It shows you can work intimately and effectively with others where and when it counts the most.

[saltpoint]

17. It counts for a lot, very true, and many of us are hungry to hear a

president speak to us.

In real English, I mean, and not the jabbering, fractured, incoherent bullshit Bush has been giving us for 8 years.

A couple of Bush State-of-the-Union speeches ago I finally said, No, I can't stay in and watch this crap for one ore miinute, and we grabbed our winter coats and headed out the door and saw MEET THE FOCKERS instead.

It will be a pleasure to look forward to a president's public addresses again.

[Yotun]

18. Don't be foolish- she runs a multi-million campaign. She has speechwriters and they're some of the

best. Fact is, sppechwriters don't just write stuff on their own. What you say is based on the strategy and positioning your campaign wants to take. Her overall agressive rather than positive message was as a result of her strategy.

And, lets be honest here folks, if she stayed positive she'd have been out of the race ages ago- the reality is, on a positive message, Obama would beat her, because his overall message as much more resonant. If she managed to stay relatively close, its because a few racists and idiots believed her negative crap.

[saltpoint]

19. I'm not following. I'm not following because if she has in fact hired

speech writers, they have evidently spent the last year or so in an opium den in a Bangkok backalley as opposed to working -- on the job -- writing interesting and context-appropriate addresses for their boss.

Actually if I worked for the Clinton campaign I would yearn strongly to spend as much time as possible in an opium den in a Bangkok backalley.