Hillary Clinton Holds Back

By
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (Photo by:Jason Kosena)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (Photo by:Jason Kosena)

This night was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s. Eyes welled up as she appeared, luminous, still so strangely lit up with loss. There in the stands, gazing at her with adoration, was her husband — her complex, clearly emotional and, we are assured, still angry, ex-president of a husband — mouthing “I love you, I love you,” as she spoke. Their long, marital dance is just an inextricable part of our national political drama, as it was again this night, with those strange, mumbled endearments.

It looked as if she was giving it her all. It sounded like it, too. There was emotion, eloquence, even humor, an impassioned plea for all the assembled Democrats — and the millions of others out there listening — to get on board, to support the party’s presumed nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. It was even lovely sometimes, artful, way above the unusually banal language most of her cohorts and colleagues have been using these past talky hours. All right, we can exempt Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Michelle Obama from this criticism. (More about both in a minute.)

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Clinton’s task was obvious. To heal the party, bring to the fold her die-hard supporters, nearly a half of whom, according to today’s Wall Street Journal, say they still cannot see their way to supporting Obama and, 20 percent say they might stray McCain’s way.

Say it ain’t so, Clinton said directly to them. You must get on board. Were you in it for me or for the country? Be your better selves and support our party’s candidate, even all you disappointed women out there. My mother was born before women had the right to vote, she said. Now my daughter can cast a vote for her mother for president.

It was goose-bump time for many women — certainly women of her warrior generation who feel as if the torch has been passed right over their heads.

No question, it was a good speech, noble. Clinton was tucking her wounds away for the good of party and country. The ultimate team-player who didn’t want to be blamed for harming that party, the ultimate fighter who didn’t want to dampen her own viability should Obama fail this time. There she would be, ready to take to the battlefield again.

You can feel that, even as watching her, there is a sense that perhaps her true fate lies elsewhere, in the long, honorable road of Teddy Kennedy. He was a man who had to run for the presidency — by the dictates of family and fate — and, once rebuffed, settled into a long, serious career in the Senate, becoming the most revered of men and agile of legislators. It’s not the torch she wanted or is able to settle for right now. Perhaps later.

What’s clear is that there is still a bruised and restless positioning going on with her, as was evident in that speech. (For Kennedy, his 1980 run signaled a hard and irrefutable end of his presidential quest; too much stuff had come up.) Yes, she endorsed Obama—mentioning him at least a dozen times. But what she endorsed was the candidate — not the man. He had no flesh on him. He was the Democratic candidate, and that was enough for her.

There was no talk of Obama’s passions, his career, their shared goals and ideals. Of course, she reaffirmed the big “D” democratic values. We’re for the forgotten, the working class not the upper class. We’re for energy independence and a restitution of the respect America used to garner around the world, so squandered in the last eight years. We’re for health care and hope and change. That’s why I ran, she said—underscore “I.” She never said that’s why Barack Obama is running. It was a passionate but strangely impersonal—almost totally impersonal —endorsement.

In fairness, to Clinton, Michelle Obama didn’t offer a completely fulsome portrait of her husband either. She wasn’t able to put flesh on the political leader her husband has been and can be. He was a community organizer. OK—what did he get done, believe in? As a state senator? As a senator? He’s a good man, she says, a man who, with tenderness and caution, drove her and their newborn daughter home from the hospital, awed by the new paternal responsibility.

That was her task, granted, to humanize their family, make them seem like every other family out there. We are awfully touchy-feely now in our conventions, in our country. But there is still a strange absence in that hall in Denver.

In fairness, too, it isn’t Clinton’s job to fill that absence. She went as far as she could. That’s what it felt like. There was just something held back, something about Barack Obama she could not certify, could not delineate—could not or would not.

Yes, he’s no McCain, no George Bush. But she didn’t try to help define who he is, didn’t exactly speak to her working-class supporters and allay their fears about Obama, didn’t say to them — he is your man, he will look after you. I know him; I’ve been with him. He is a good man, a man of judgment and compassion.

She didn’t say any of that. She threaded a rhetorical needle Tuesday night.

There was much to admire, to resonate to in her speech. But, whether consciously or unconsciously, from will or wounds, there was still something missing: Obama himself.

Anne Taylor Fleming is a novelist, commentator and essayist for “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.” She is the author of a memoir, “Motherhood Deferred: A Woman’s Journey.”

Comments

31 Comments

fay
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:14 pm

Forget about Fairness to Clinton

Michelle Obama was not running against her husband and had to pipe down because AMERICANS dont really want to know the black man who might be president.

But Mrs Clinton knows Barack and should have, as an experienced politicain, unlike Michelle, made the link with her positions and his.

She should have repudiated his “inexperience” pointing out that in the heat of campaiging, or at the begining, we cannot see the end, but it is clear that Senator Obama had the experience to out manoeuver seasoned politicians to win the primaries.

That his demeanour shows a spine of steel. that her husband, that led America to the golden economic age was younger than Barack was when he was elected as was JFK.

She should have acknowledged his rapid rise to success, not in a grudging way—otherwise it was a great speech


Jeff Miller
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

Very, VERY perceptive: Impersonal. Passionate, but about electing a “Democrat” not a man called Barack. And we gave her (the LOSER) her own NIGHT! And gave her crap of a husband HIS own night! When is the world NOT about the Clintons?? Who the hell are these people? She, who brutally and personally savaged Obama during the primaries, and he, the ex president, who can't even bring himself to utter Obama's name? Who claims HE hasn't been treated with enough deference to get out there and campaign for the Democratic nominee. Shame on them and shame on us for putting up with their self-aggrandizing ploys!


lawgrrl
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

Interesting analysis. But, I think, for her die-hard followers, it would have been a waste of time to “humanize” Obama or to say “he's a great guy after all”. Her followers don't care and won't (for now) embrace him the way they embrace her. So she appealed to them in a way that they could appreciate and that would sway them—-you don't have to love him, but don't you love your country and all of us who have been suffering for 8 years?? That was the point she needed to make for her audience in order to get them on board. I think it might have worked. For the Hillary-extremists—they have deep personal issues and are probably freaky in their own personal lives—and would never vote for him no matter what. I'm satisfied with what Hillary did.


Jorge
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

As a person who once supported and felt very good about the Clintons, who thought that Hillary would make a great… well anything including President. If Obama loses this race, I will not vote for her, and would probably leave the democratic party.


txgal44
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

That's OK because if it ever comes a time for Hillary, I'll hold back…… my vote! And so will millions of others. So, she better watch herself because what goes around comes around. You'd think she'd learned this by now.


Sarah Blackmun
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

Surely it is not Hillary Clinton's responsibility to humanize Barack Obama. It's HIS responsibility–if he wants to. Personally, I hope he doesn't. We desperately need a smart, tough-minded, strategic Democrat in the White House. Being warm and snuggly is no longer in the job description, if it ever was.

Surely it is not Hillary Clinton's responsibility to guarantee that Barack Obama wins this election. It's HIS responsibility. He has already made enough mistakes to make me wonder whether he will win. If he doesn't, it certainly won't be Hillary's fault. To suggest that it will is a bit craven, I think.


LisaHussein
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

YES, it will be all of our faults if he does not win. When the ReTHUGs elect – they all get behind the program and move it forward. To think that we can sit on the sidelines and do nothing is the reason we had Bush for 8 years. and now EVERY SINGLE TACTIC that the GOP is using – including her own words – was first said by Clinton. And there's nothing that he said about her that they could have used — and still SHE LOST. He beat the MACHINE. And I don't want to hear about media preference, because CNN did a study right before the primary ended which noted that Barack had more negative coverage than almost McCain and Clinton PUT TOGETHER.


jccpdx
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

Very true. Hillary didn't personalize Obama, just affirmed “we're all Democrats in this together” and “Obama is better than McCain.” It was really weird. Hillary is a party wrecker. I want to appreciate her, on some level, but I just can't. Her speech made me realize how shallow and devious she really is. There was “something (big) missing” in that speech. I guess she's just so darn jealous.


jccpdx
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 5:37 pm

Good point Jeff Miller. Why are they so special anyway? Well… I guess it's because we want the Hillary-supporter's votes. Okay. Fine. But Hillary used this venue for her own aggrandizement and no one elses'. She said less about Obama than she did about herself and her “pants-suit wearing” supporters. God! I hate pants suits! But that's beside the point. I am so sick of the Clintons… I can barely stand it anymore… I will never, under any circumstances, vote for her.


Quantum
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

She's just feeding her own glory – Hillary believes Obama will lose and she's positioning herself for the 2012 election.

She could care less about Obama and I would hazard to say that she even dislikes him. Anyone who could toss out the idea that he could be shot any time because he's black has made their position well known.


daniel
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

I have to say whom ever wrote this apparently was sleeping during both speeches and the headlines from every member of the MSM shows that she not only tied there ideas and values together but she also made the point that it is not about HER or HIM or any one person, or party for that matter! it is about America. This article is an opinion not fact and from someone who either A. was a sleep, Or B. just is to small minded to grasp the bigger picture! Complete trash!!! no facts, no substance, just plain garbage!!!
Life long democrat of 63 years former hillary supporter now firmly in Obama court because of this speech!


daniel
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

What mistakes are you speaking of? He has made a few but certainly not the mass amount you speak of. Unless every time a reporter says he made a mistake you just believe everything you read! you should go listen to FAUX news it sounds like it is for people like you who don't bother to check facts or in most cases don't even care what the facts are!


Stevie
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 7:56 pm

Obama-maniacs are insatiable and cannot be appeased. Nothing Hillary could have done short of claiming that she'd fallen in love with him would have satisfied you lot. Is it really her responsibility to “humanize” Obama? Was she really supposed to go up there and wax poetic about the man, the legend, the myth, oh joy? She did what she was supposed to do: she went up there and endorsed him and gave a speech meant to convince her following (myself included) that regardless of how we felt the whole primary season went down, it's more important to gather around the party and do our part to elect a Democrat. It's not enough for you zealots that we go and vote for Obama this election year; you want us to fall at his feet adoringly and worship him to the same degree that you do. Talk about greedy. Get over it. We may vote for him, but we don't have to love him. And you lot that cross you arms and stomp your feet and say, “I won't vote for Hillary EVER! She's evil” are as bad as you claim her supporters to be. Grow up.


Sarah Blackmun
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:04 pm

“Mass” is your word, Daniel, not mine. I said “enough mistakes to make me wonder.” Perhaps I should have said “enough mistakes to make me very afraid.”

Obama's most important mistake is not calling McCain on his dishonesty and dirty tricks. McCain should not be allowed to get away with it. For example, now we all know that McCain was not in “a cone of silence” while Rick Warren interviewed Obama. It is perfectly possible that McCain listened to the interview on his car radio. When Warren asked him about it, McCain made a joke. He didn't just say the truth: “I was not in the cone of silence. I was in my limo.” It's up to Obama to respond, since the media don't seem willing to do their job; the New York Times ran a brief story on the lower left of an inside page….


Sarah Blackmun
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:11 pm

Right! This woman ran her heart out, and now the Obamanaics expect her to fall all over herself expressing her affection. Get real, people! I'm voting for Obama because (a) I'm a lifelong Democrat and (b) I always vote. But don't ask me to love him. Respect him, yes; love him, no.

I do love Michelle, though!


Sarah Blackmun
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

“Very afraid” that he will lose the election, that is.


Tami
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

Hillary didn't knock anything out the ball park. She was there to save HER political career….
She spent 20 minutes talking about herself, 3 minutes talking about Barack, and 2 minute poking her finger at John McCain.

The Clintons have been around the political world longer than many of you born today. Her strategy in the primaries was if I can't win, then I will make sure that Barack doesn't either. Her journey for the nominee ended in March 2008, she knew it, and so she took a Tonya Harding to Obama any chance that she could, while praising John McCain. Many of you say, well she wanted to win, sure she did, but there is a way to fight your family member as opposed to fighting a complete stranger. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she endorsed John McCain and stayed in a losing battle (dividing the party). Hillary speech last night was about her run for presidency in 2012.

She said that Barack is my candidate and that’s who I’m supporting. In other words, I’m better, but he’s alright.

Sorry, she should have spent at least 10 minutes talking about Barack’s qualifications and experience as being president, since she repeatedly said on many occasions that he wasn’t ready.

Okay she said, No Way, No How, No John McCain…..whoopty doo. Which is the harsher statement, “I have a lifetime of experience, John McCain has a lifetime of experience, and Sen. Obama has a speech.”

The constant attacks from Bill Clinton and Hillary's surrogates are speaking volumes!!! The plan is to make Hillary look above the fray, while Bill and her surrogates butcher Obama…

If America falls for this than we deserve everything that we get! Honestly, I’m starting to doubt if Bush cheated, I think that people were just that naïve to be duped TWICE!


Stephen Cohen
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:23 pm

You mean she didn't talk about soft and fuzzy stuff and how she'd like to have a beer with him and how cute he is when he smiles? Are you dumb or something? What is this talk-show mentality that has to get personal? Just how personal did it get with supports of Lincoln or Jefferson? Why do you need people fawning over him “personally”?

She threw her support to him without restraint and got the Democrats on their feet and charged for the next two months.

When you give your speech, I think you should do it your way.


Stephen Cohen
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

I think the “mistakes” referenced were his moving away from oil drilling, gun control and moved towards FISA and dropping out of the limited campaign spending promise.

It's Obama's election to lose and don't blame the Clintons for entrenched racism in this country.

As for CNN doing a study about negative reporting on HRC, that's like the Bush attorney general investigating Bush's crimes.

I was not a Hillary supporter although I thought she'd be the better candidate but when I watched the cable shows and read the Hillary hatred on blogs like Huff Po, I was outraged and started to donate and support her. She was trashed and called names I won't repeat here. You would think her work for children, families, health care, etc. would count for something. She wanted to be President and you trash her for that? Her campaigning until June is the only reason Obama has a chance to win — she introduced him to every State, got more Democrats registered and toughened him up for November.


Stephen Cohen
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:33 pm

She never said that or implied that. You are a fool for believing it and ignorant if you haven't checked on what she really said and meant and a moron on top of it.

Obamapumas!!!! stop the madness already and get on with the election and stop trashing Hillary. I don't even think you posters are Democrats. Rovian stooges.


Stephen Cohen
Comment posted August 27, 2008 @ 8:38 pm

You obviously know nothing about Hillary or the political process of this country. If she dropped out in March, she would have been cheating herself. You make it sound like Obama was entitled to the nomination. By going on through every primary she brought the fight for our country to every State and energized Democrats, increased registration. Along the way, Obama had to go to places where he wasn't known. Those primaries introduced him to the electorate and toughened him up for the general election. Obama is faltering since June by back tracking on his promises. He would be at 20% if he was free to screw up from March through May.

Listening to some other speeches. I don't here “Obama” the man in Kerry's or other speeches. I guess it's all about Kerry and not Obama. Grow UP!


jeanrenoir
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 1:10 am

It's interesting that two such perceptive and accomplished liberal women as Anne Fleming and Nora Ephron BOTH accurately critiqued Hillary's speech last night. As usual, Hillary, like Bill, was USING the poor, pitiful people she encountered in the campaign to inflate herself and her ambitions. She was pretending to be nobly and selflessly fighting for them, not herself. Just as in her staged “crying” session in New Hampshire. Maybe Hillary even believes this phony hypocrisy. I'm glad other smart women of her generation see through it. If she had really walked the walk last night, she would have truly forgotten her own ambitions and gone all out for the poor people she claims mean more to her than her own glory. The stakes for these poor people have never been higher, and Obama's their only hope.


janice1227
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 2:15 am

I was a great supporter of Bill, and always considered his infidelities Hillary's headache not mine. But watching him perform his patented lip-biting – tear-welling act as he lip-synced his love was too much for me. Has anyone mentioned how Hillary listed herself as a mother, daughter, sister …you name it – and never once said “wife” ? I'm so tired of the Clintons – they are like in-laws who come to visit for a day and stay for a year.


janice1227
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 2:33 am

couldn't agree more. As for the Clintons I'm tired of the lip-synched “I love you” schmaltz, the tears welling in the eyes (never spilling over – Bill has turned this into a science) the pantsuits, the barely veiled disdain for anyone in their way. I voted for Bill twice, and I think he's living proof that a good president can be a lousy husband and still steer the country toward prosperity and peace. But his torch has not only passed – it has been doused. Enough. Job well done, Bill and Hill, but it's time to go home and look at one another as human beings, not political liabilities or assets. That idea is what frightens them onto center stage, to bask for a moment longer before having to face each other. I'm tired of watching them use America as the excuse for staying in a bad marriage – we are the ” I can't leave because of the kids” refrain uttered by people too week to recognize when their relationship has run its course.


sall
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 4:22 am

Well said. She is truly a vile, vile human being. The sense of entitlement is sickening. And the media narrative is erroneous.

1. She's a champion of the working class white voters that kept her alive in the latter primaries.

False. She has amassed more than $100 million dollars, but has left vendors hanging for months. Rather than write them a check out of her personal fortune, so that the don't have to wait any longer for payment, and then try to get it recouped. If she wasn't seen as trying to sabotage Senator Obama, she likely would have received more help with this debt.
Also there were no other voters left after the black people and/or the liberal wing of the party had already committed to Barack Obama.


carolyn
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 7:19 am

the clintons are poised and ready should something unfortunate happen to obama. they have fulfilled their party expectations to step in should the opportunity arise and they have artfully distanced themselves to run as an independent if obamas numbers fall. Bill knows from his own election in 92 how one can slip in against two who aren't cutting it as he suggests with his comments about “X and Y”


janice1227
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 7:33 am

couldn't agree more. As for the Clintons I'm tired of the lip-synched “I love you” schmaltz, the tears welling in the eyes (never spilling over – Bill has turned this into a science) the pantsuits, the barely veiled disdain for anyone in their way. I voted for Bill twice, and I think he's living proof that a good president can be a lousy husband and still steer the country toward prosperity and peace. But his torch has not only passed – it has been doused. Enough. Job well done, Bill and Hill, but it's time to go home and look at one another as human beings, not political liabilities or assets. That idea is what frightens them onto center stage, to bask for a moment longer before having to face each other. I'm tired of watching them use America as the excuse for staying in a bad marriage – we are the ” I can't leave because of the kids” refrain uttered by people too week to recognize when their relationship has run its course.


sall
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 9:22 am

Well said. She is truly a vile, vile human being. The sense of entitlement is sickening. And the media narrative is erroneous.

1. She's a champion of the working class white voters that kept her alive in the latter primaries.

False. She has amassed more than $100 million dollars, but has left vendors hanging for months. Rather than write them a check out of her personal fortune, so that the don't have to wait any longer for payment, and then try to get it recouped. If she wasn't seen as trying to sabotage Senator Obama, she likely would have received more help with this debt.
Also there were no other voters left after the black people and/or the liberal wing of the party had already committed to Barack Obama.


carolyn
Comment posted August 28, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

the clintons are poised and ready should something unfortunate happen to obama. they have fulfilled their party expectations to step in should the opportunity arise and they have artfully distanced themselves to run as an independent if obamas numbers fall. Bill knows from his own election in 92 how one can slip in against two who aren't cutting it as he suggests with his comments about “X and Y”


mbt shoes
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 3:14 am

It looks good,I have learn a recruit!
Recently,I found an excellent online store, the http://www.always11.net are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying!


gucci portfolio
Comment posted September 30, 2010 @ 7:56 am

he clintons are poised and ready should something unfortunate happen to obama. they have fulfilled their party expectations to step in should the opportunity arise and they have artfully distanced themselves to run as an independent if obamas numbers fall. Bill knows from his own election in 92 how one can slip in against two who aren't cutting it as he suggests with his comments about “X and Y”


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.