Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
print
font size
options
 
Wednesday, August 27, 2008



DENVER - Many of my press colleagues seem to believe that Hillary Clinton last night delivered a "full-throated endorsement" of Barack Obama (to quote one story), and that she did so "emotionally and definitively" (to quote another).

I strongly beg to differ.

It was little more than a generic party endorsement; in essence, she said merely that her followers should fall in line behind Obama because he is a Democrat, she is a Democrat, they are all Democrats, and the bad guys are Republicans. She had great things to say about the party, and she made it clear that Obama agrees with her about the mission of the party. But she had virtually nothing of a personal nature to say about Obama, other than a fleeting reference to his early stint as a community organizer.

And what Obama needed most was a ringing personal endorsement of his character - a few lines, perhaps, about his leadership potential, his power to inspire, and even his preparedness to command. Even if Clinton doesn't really believe he has those attributes (indeed, it appears she has doubts), that kind of public vetting would have been the strongest possible signal to her most diehard delegates that they should quit their whining, park their delusions about she was supposedly robbed of victory, and cancel any plans they might have to make mischief during the symbolic roll call vote this evening.

But she didn't do that. Instead, she pointedly praised Michelle Obama and predicted that "she will be a great first lady for America." Traditional convention hyperbole would at least require that she also view Barack Obama as a "great" future president, but nary a word about that. Then she pointedly lauded running mate Joe Bidn as "a strong leader, a good man...he's pragmatic, he's tough, and he's wise." Take a guess who was not described as strong or good or pragmatic or tough or wise.

At another point, she listed her issue aspirations - ending discrimination, promoting unionization, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and so much more, the generic Democratic list - and finished by saying that "those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president." Then she went into a riff about how "we need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism," yet she couldn't bring herself to declare that Obama was such a leader, or to even put "leader" and "Obama" in the same sentence."

Undecided voters have been hanging back on Obama not because they have doubts about the Democrats - quite the opposite, since polls show the Democrats hammering the Republicans in generic White House matchups - but because they have doubts about him. Clinton's generic praise for the Democrats did nothing to help Obama. Where she could have helped most, in the personal realm, she did virtually nothing.

Even John McCain rated a shout-out as her "friend and colleague" - whereas Obama is merely a Democrat who would govern as a Democrat, just like in the '90s, "with President Clinton and the Democrats." Apparently, her idea of praise was to suggest that Barack is in the grand tradition of Bill, a comparison that the '08 nominee might well consider dubious.

Granted, she did twice refer to the nominee as "President Obama," and she did suggest that her troops should get with the program ("none of us can afford to sit on the sidelines"). In other words, there was enough for her camp to spin the speech as a sufficient nod to Obama.

But she did nothing to dispel the notion (which she first introduced, and has since bequeathed to a grateful McCain) that Obama still lacks the personal attributes to handle a crisis at three in the morning. Her glaring omission speaks volumes about the grudging mood inside Clintonland, and matters far more than her generic call to arms.

And now comes Bill, tonight. The word is that Obama's people, as courtesy to a former president, will not be vetting the speech in advance. You never quite know what this guy is going to say, or how long it will take him to say it. (The person I feel sorry for is Beth Robinson, the "stay at home mom" who is scheduled to follow him.) Bill reminds me of the Grateful Dead; going in, you never knew how they'd do the songs or whether Jerry would have maximum use of his remaining brain cells. Bill will probably do the party generics, praise himself lavishly, rhetorically construct a whole new presidential library to himself, then give a nod to Obama while leaving a load of stuff between the lines. Or not.

And then he leaves. The Obama people are undoubtedly looking forward to the clock striking 10 p.m. in the east, because that's when they finally get their convention back.

Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:38 AM  Permalink | 70 comments
Comments   
Posted 11:56 AM, 08/27/2008
dan19148
I actually totally agree. Surprised the DN is posting this.
Posted 12:02 PM, 08/27/2008
frankg962
I refuse to watch any of the convention coverage on both sides. I don't want to hear Billary crying nor their supporters whining and I certainly couldn't stand to be preached at the way the R's tend to do. This 4 day political advertisement is a waste of time.
Posted 12:03 PM, 08/27/2008
jwad56
She can't give a personal endorsement because it would be a pile of BS. Plus, she will be running again in 4 years whether or not BO wins.
Posted 12:09 PM, 08/27/2008
dhallenbeck
She gave a great speech. She did more for Obama than any other 2nd place finisher in Democratic history. But, like most of the MSM who is in the tank for Obama, you refuse to do your homework or point out those facts. Instead, you do the typical whining about how she didn't enthusiastically throw her support behind the chosen One. If she had done more, it wouldn't have been believable. He's a weak candidate. You know it. I know it. And she knows it. WORDS are not going to change that.
Posted 12:12 PM, 08/27/2008
RG
I agree she gave a great speech, however, I'll firmly disagree he's a weak candidate. He wouldn't have beat her otherwise.
Posted 12:19 PM, 08/27/2008
bon
RG: He is a weaker candidate now then he was then. (Imagine if the Wright tapes had leaked before Iowa...) There was a time when all of us thought Obama was a stronger candidate than Hillary. That time has passed. ----- She gave a good speech and she endorsed the Democratic agenda. She said she would rather Obama win the presidency than McCain. Could she have done more? Sure. Would Obama have done more for her? Probably not.
Posted 12:22 PM, 08/27/2008
puttinonthefoil
I thought all of yesterday's speeches were pretty generic. Bill gave a good one in 2004. I'm sure he will be great again. My favorite line of his last year - re: the national debt/surplus issue: "Our way works, theirs doesn't." And if Obama were a weak candidate, he would not have survived Clinton in the primaries. McCain did not survive Bush - what does that say about him?
Posted 12:25 PM, 08/27/2008
JimR
Maybe it's just the cynic in me but, I kept thinking that she was prepping for her next run. I expected a much more enthusiastic push for Obama. It's still 'all about the Clintons'
Posted 12:26 PM, 08/27/2008
RG
Oh, those guilt by association tapes? Obama MUST be a militant becuase his pastor said GD America.
Posted 12:43 PM, 08/27/2008
chris duckworth
Good analysis. The speech was fine, not great, and definitely NOT a ringing endorsement. I'll be interested to see what she does on the stump for him between now and November . . .
Posted 12:56 PM, 08/27/2008
tom - wilmington, de
Obama needed Hillary to come out and enthusiastically support him for president. That did not happen. I agree with Polman (did I just type that????) 100%. He may be in the tank for Obama, but he gane an honest assessment of her speech. She could have done more, she should have done more. She could have expressed his leadership skills in the way he defeated her during the primaries. She could have said something about leadership he exhibited in the Senate, if he did exhibit any. Yet she simply gave a generic endorsement, similar to what Bill gave to Al Gore in 2000, so as to show support for the party nominee and keep her hopes alive for the future. On another note, Nancy Pelosi continues to hurt the party, standing by her statement on Meet the Press that the Catholic Church does not recognize life as beginning at conception, despite being upbraided by two Arch Bishops on the issue. She should just keep her mouth shut.
Posted 01:10 PM, 08/27/2008
aviben
By trying to have it both ways, doesn't Hillary put ambition above principle? Not "Which Side Are You On, Boys?" but instead, "Both Sides Now." http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hillarys-choice-ambition-over-principle-get-political-w-vic-livingston
Posted 01:14 PM, 08/27/2008
vc bear
Lincoln said it so well, " a house divided can not stand". The side bar comments by "fustrated Hillary fund raisers", Gov Rendells, "he is not the easiest guy to relate to" and then there is James Carvel.............. Shesh!
Posted 01:29 PM, 08/27/2008
James TL
Every great leader was inexperienced at some point. I really think Obama will make a good president. He will have seasoned advisors to aid him. This country needs a change of course. We cannot continue running up record defecits causing hardship to our children and grandchildren. This coupled with the republicans lying us into an unnecessary war (with unfortunate support from many democrats but not Obama) means that they don't deserve to be rewarded with 4 more years. Clinton not giving Obama enthusiastic support doesn't surprise me. She wants to be president and is still licking her wounds. I really believe most democrats will support Obama while a lot of republicans will simply stay home. McCain should have been the republican candidate in 2000. His time is past. It's time for a new leader, someone that will at least help turn this country around and back on course.
Posted 01:38 PM, 08/27/2008
dhallenbeck
Those of you who disagree with me have every right to, however, I think you are totally wrong about Obama not being a weak candidate. If he weren't such a weak candidate, it wouldn't matter what the Clintons did or said about him...and he wouldn't be statistically tied against McCain. Most of the polls are showing that any generic Democrat would be doing better than Obama. He was a complete fool to not pick her as his VP. That lesson will be driven home hard in November.
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.