THE PLANK JANUARY 6, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I thought Hillary was excellent last night, on all fronts: on message, riddled with the factoids and specifics that I am always hoping other candidates will bring into the discussion, and finally passionate about wanting the biggest job in the world. She looked great and gave far more than she got in the face of a serene, newly-comfortable Barack Obama. I gave her the debate victory on the spot.
In the wake of the debate, team Clinton unfurled the "framework" for her effort to kneecap Obama's candidacy in New Hampshire. It is premised on something she articulated during the debate, that will be getting a lot of play from New Hampshire to February 5: that
Words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they
are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into
action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that.
I hear that, but also heard Obama's response with interest:
I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those
budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to
do that. But we never built the majority and coalesced the American
people around being able to get the other stuff done.And, you know, so the truth is actually words do inspire. Words
do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get
into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health
care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that
power, because when the American people are determined that something
is going to happen, then it happens. [emphasis mine]
Here I think Obama was right to push back directly on the words versus action challenge, not just because his rhetorical skills are a strong suit among voters, but because it is consistent with an appreciation for "people power" he's maintained since before he was elected to office in Illinois. A 1995 profile in the independent weekly Chicago Reader, required reading for those on the fence about Obama's political pedigree, recounts his belief in amassing human capital for change:
'We have no shortage of moral fervor,' said Obama. 'We have some
wonderful preachers in town--preachers who continue to inspire
me--preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world
as it should be. In every church on Sunday in the African-American
community we have this moral fervor; we have energy to burn.
'But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find
ways to channel all this energy into community building. The biggest
failure of the civil rights movement was in failing to translate this
energy, this moral fervor, into creating lasting institutions and
organizational structures.'[snip]
To work, [politics]
can't see voters or communities as consumers, as mere recipients or
beneficiaries of this change. It's time for politicians and other
leaders to take the next step and to see voters, residents, or citizens
as producers of this change. The thrust of our organizing must be on
how to make them productive, how to make them employable, how to build
our human capital, how to create businesses, institutions, banks, safe
public spaces--the whole agenda of creating productive communities.
That is where our future lies. [emphasis mine]
As usual Obama was right on pitch for his audience of south side blacks. But this statement also echoes yesterday's point about where Clinton 1.0 fell short. Obama's proposed "working majority for change" is all about numbers and energy--as he put it last night, "we have to bet on [the American people]." Hillary and Obama are both smart enough to know this makes his a risky run--with powerful consequences, or real action, if it continues to be successful.
If Hillary could be honest with herself, she might conclude that the "words" and "action" argument is a false choice. But without more explicit stuff than Obama gave last night, she might pull this spin off. So my main gripe is Obama's hesitance to connect his message to his own experience. The "35 years" thing is ingrained by now--do Americans know that Obama does have the experience to back up the message that is captivating America? He needs to incorporate a new smattering of buzzwords into his speech, but foremost among them: "community organizer." I am at a loss as to why he cannot be more precise about this compelling facet of his experience.
--Dayo Olopade
Update: The Reader excerpt has been edited. Do look at the whole thing here.
8 comments
Any idea how that "35 year thing" became ingrained? As far as I can tell, it's untrue.
At londonbridges.wordpress.com it claims that she essentially lifted that number from Biden.
- mmarvit2
January 6, 2008 at 4:47pm
Barrack apparently hasn't read Bob Woodward's "The Agenda," else he'd know that Hillary was largely responsible for righting the pass-the-budget ship and later joined in the last-second arm twisting necessary to pass the bill. And maybe he didn't notice that Newt Gingrich's plan was 180 degrees against cooperation and coalitions -- if he's asking people to believe that *he* would have done better dealing with it than Clinton...well, we get what we deserve I suppose...
- Lymon1
January 6, 2008 at 6:07pm
I've heard Obama's stump, victory, and Jeff/Jack speach and they ALL mention community organizer. Prominently.
However, what's less well articulated is the transparency in government act, the video taping confessions, in IL, etc. He DOES have an impressive record in bringing together disparate parties to get good progressive legislation passed.
As for whether it would work then, doesn't matter, but what DOES matter is would it work now. So many WANT to believe... Clinton perhaps squandered his Congressional majority by not working the PR side well...
- dbhuff
January 6, 2008 at 6:40pm
I hear Mrs. Clinton extoll her track record of bringing about change but I wonder why no one has challenged that statement using the fact that her highest profile role of leadership for change is when her husband gave her a leading role in health care reform and, because of her failure in that role, the opportunity for health care reform was buried for the duration of the Clinton administration.
- mike.finney
January 6, 2008 at 6:42pm
dbhuff: I agree with you. I've heard the organizer card played dozens of times, in the simple context of moving across the country and rejecting money. But I haven't heard it *explained.* Not nearly enough.
- Dayo Olopade
January 6, 2008 at 7:05pm
Couple things about the debate.
Number one, and off the subject, but I need to say it.....Obama's "you're likable ENOUGH, Hillary", was coldblooded as hell, and mean, especially coming on the heels of the one human moment Hillary had been able to must in 45 minutes. Not Obama's best.
That being said, I am so tired of Hillary talking about "actions not words" and citing her "35 years" of enacting change. WHAT CHANGE? What tangible piece of change can Hillary Clinton actually claim in that 35 years. What piece of legislation, what executive order, what public policy can Hillary point to and say, I did that? Obama can at least point to legislation that he sponsored and pushed all the way through to enactment at both the state and federal levels that made (howevery imperfectly, Charlie Gibson....) signifigant and serious changes in health care, the tax system, death penalty and criminal procedures and Federal Congressional ethics law. Hillary was quick to point out that Edward's Patient's Bill of Rights never got past the House, but what has she every sponsored (of any real consequense) that got even that far? When she is pressed (as she was last night) she says she has been "working for change" for thirtyfive years. Well, shit, I've been working for World Piece for my entire life. I've meditated and prayed, I been nice to people on the bus and the in my neighborhood, I've written strongly worded and emphatic letters to the editor and posted deep thoughts on all the blogs......but I really can't claim World Peace on my resume', alas, because I haven't really ENACTED it yet, have I? But I have, certainly, worked for it. Yeah, I sure have done that.
But Hillary...what have you actually DONE?
(Besides set Univeral Health Care back for a generation, handle your own scandals so incompetently that you set the stage for an Impeachment crisis that wasted your husband's entire second term and lost any opportunity to enact any serious change, and enable George Bush to take this country into an unnecessary and ill-advised war?)
- vanwurs
January 6, 2008 at 10:42pm
I've looked into Hillary's "35 years" claim, and so far as I can tell, what happened 35 years ago is that she graduated from law school. Ta da! Yes, she was involved in various civic projects for most of her post law-school career but um...so has Obama. So what this comes down to is: Hillary is older than Obama. I agree with her there. Just not sure that constitutes a positive quality...
Oh yes, and she has been in the U.S. senate for 7 years, to Obama's 3. But Obama has been in electoral politics for 11 years, as opposed to Hilary's...you guessed it, 7!
We all know that she basically wants to count all her time at Bill's side as experience - and I'm sure it did teach her a thing or two. Nevertheless, I do wish Obama would call her out on her ridiculous claims to experience. The commenters above are right.
8 years as First Lady netted Hillary a failed health care plan (a failure largely attributed to her political ineptitude) and a speech on women's rights in 1995. I think Obama has just a bit more to show for his time during that same 8 year period, and I think the media ought to start asking Hillary some tough questions about what exactly she has accomplished in her "fight for change" for the past "35 years."
ugh!
- shims-b
January 7, 2008 at 12:58am
If Edwards is "bad cop" now, and since he was attacked for not passing the patient's bill of rights, [and thereby killing someone named Nathalie?] he seems the perfect person to ask about those 35 years. But I also agree with everyone who is frustrated by Obama's not trotting out his own very impressive record of accomplishments himself. Because I do not believe that change and experience are mutually exclusive. I actually buy Hillary's argument, just think it doesn't apply to her, for the exact reasons Wandreycer said.
- psantillana
January 7, 2008 at 3:48am