On the packaging of candidates
First, if you’re wondering what I as a Hillary supporter think about Hillary’s decision to continue running after yesterday, the answer is I don’t know what I think of it as a strategy. Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail. I am not sanguine. People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot. We’ll see.
But — and this matters more to me — I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through. Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at Hillary’s insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her. She is indomitable. I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats. Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can’t see what a force of nature she really is.
Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it. Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.
At The New Republic, E.J. Dionne bemoans the race we ought to have had between the Democratic candidates. The article expresses the author’s wish that we could have seen a race between the Hillary who has emerged and the Obama who doesn’t exist, though naturally it’s not expressed quite in that way. In reality, of course, any perceived
changes in the candidates simply have to do with changes in voters’ changing perceptions, often as a result of the media’s framing of them.
Hillary and Obama are pretty much who they have always been. I never believed in the ‘elitist’ image of the Clintons — come on; Bill was the very effective governor of Arkansas —- and I never bought into Obama’s image as the herald (if not the messiah) of a new political awakening.
The article is full of praise for ‘the new Clinton,’ so-called.
Hillary Clinton found a compelling voice and a plausible strategy only after she had squandered her chances of winning the nomination without a divisive struggle over superdelegates and convention rules. It took a series of defeats to galvanize her campaign and help her put forward a
better self….The new Clinton is a wonder to behold. In the 1990s, Hillary and Bill Clinton were trashed by their enemies as elitist, Ivy League, McGovernite liberals–i.e., exactly the way Clinton’s people are eviscerating Obama.
But over the last month, Clinton has emerged as a working-class hero who gets knocked down, always gets up, and thus wins favorable comparisons with Rocky Balboa…Nothing becomes her so much as hardship. (TNR)
I agree with all of this, except the part that implies that she ever was anything else besides what she appears. She is both ‘an Ivy League liberal’ — no Democrat should buy into the right-wing cant that that’s a bad thing — and mature woman with first-hand, life-long knowledge of the plight of the working (and disenfranchised) poor, including, or especially, women. Of course she is. The ‘elitist’ Clinton and the ‘working class hero Clinton’ are as much media creations as Obama: Untainted Herald of a New Age in American Politics or as Obama: Secret Supporter (or enabler) of Rev. Wright’s brand of theology. None of the attempts of the media to paint them as no more than their packaging are accurate: both are real, faulty human beings with the usual mix of good and bad. I just happen to prefer Hillary’s faults, as well as her virtues (one of which is her willingness to fight for herself and her position).
I don’t have a need to believe in the moral unassailability of a presidential candidate and I’ve never understood why it’s necessary to bicker over which one is prettier and smells better. An American president needs to be someone with the outlook of an optimist and the qualities of a cynic — wily, wary, cautious, suspicious, able to read between the lines, and so on. If anything, seeing Obama’s halo knocked askew has made him seem less impossible for me to support; if his campaign were less hypocritical, I’d be feeling far less unhappy than I do about the prospect of ending up with him as a candidate. I don’t trust charisma or self-serving hazy promises of a new approach to politics; I remember Jimmy Carter’s campaign, and,whatever Carter’s virtues humanly and humanely speaking, we all know how well that presidency turned out. (Shut up, Jimmy Carter).
So unlike Dionne, I don’t wish we had the two of them packaged as the now Clinton and the previous Obama; I wish the unmasking had begun earlier or the masks had never been imposed on them in the first place.
19 Responses to “On the packaging of candidates”
Interesting post.
I'm not sure I totally understand where you're coming from on one issue though. You say that Hillary Clinton's fighting spirit is an admirable quality. Sure. However, you phrase it in such a way that makes it seem like you don't think Obama has that same quality.
If that's true, I'm wondering what gives you that impression.
I wished she had shown that sort of grit during the run up to the Iraq war.
janinedm,
That's assuming she actually opposed it
Touche
She has all the qualities that you mentioned. Unfortunately for her, her campaign advisers didn't let that shine through. I am a former Clinton supporter who became horrified by the antics of her campaign. The thing is, she didn't need to stoop this low. She has the intelligence, toughness and ambition to have conquered anything and yet she squandered not only her shot at the Presidency, but her and Bill's legacy. I know the die-hard Clinton fans (I'm not being disparaging here) don't think this has happened, but everyone I talk to (Obama, McCain and Clinton supporters) think that it has. I would have voted for her if she was the nominee, but she isn't going to be and now we have to stand united.
“You say that Hillary Clinton's fighting spirit is an admirable quality. Sure.”
It beats one alternative, saying that she is as stubborn as Bush is. [grin]
“She is [...] ‘an Ivy League liberal’ — no Democrat should buy into the right-wing cant that that’s a bad thing”
That's a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD thing.
DLS,
It can't be worse than our current Ivy League Republican president.
But seriously. I want the President to have an education from a good school. I want the President to be the best of the best. I dare say, I want the President to be elite.
“It can't be worse than our current Ivy League Republican president.”
None of the three candidates are worse than our current Ivy League president.
“I want the President to be elite.”
All three candidates are fine in this regard. Where I dissent is where they are _elitist_. Ivy League liberals are commonly, terribly elitist. That bothers Americans.
Do you mean to say you disapprove of the kind of elitism that focuses on tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans while the rest of us are seeing falling wages and a higher cost of living? The kind of elitism where you leave your injured wife for a much younger and wealthier uninjured one? The kind of elitism where you staff your campaign with more wealthy lobbyists than any other?
“Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it. Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.”
To date this is totally true. (I've been asked about why he performs exercises in content-free speechmaking and I've said in turn that his speeches are not only full of sound bites — which is what we expect from all the candidates this year and all other politicians as well — his speeches amount to single, long sound bites.)
So long as the rhetoric-only approach is successful with as many people as he is having, I would expect this approach to be continued. Note that if he is nominated, it then becomes a contest between him and McCain and he's freed from his current reticence as far as negative rhetoric is in his speeches. He can go on offense in earnest once he has the nomination and has more rhetoric (hopefully beyond the silly, stupid “another Bush” drivel) to use to appeal to so many voters' emotions.
(His appeal, as someone else correctly stated is particularly high among the young — we should add, often idealistic and naive, is an appeal to emotion, of his youth and attractiveness — American Idol voter appeal — and along with Clinton, an obvious minority-ground-support appeal. In Obama's case it really is all about the packaging. And just wait until McCain is presented against him as a dull geezer, possibly, the media will say, with Cheney-like evil tendences he's hidden from us.)
“Do you mean to say you disapprove of the kind of elitism that focuses on tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans while the rest of us are seeing falling wages and a higher cost of living? The kind of elitism where you leave your injured wife for a much younger and wealthier uninjured one? The kind of elitism where you staff your campaign with more wealthy lobbyists than any other?”
Nice equivocation. You don't miss many opportunities, do you?
John “Keating Five” McCain is far from perfect as a candidate. Just ask his many critics. (I'm one of them.)
“tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans while the rest of us are seeing falling wages and a higher cost of living”
Actually, I'm relocating from Iowa to Detroit metro shortly and making nearly 50% more money in the new job. (I was hoping to go to St. Louis instead, but the lead for a job there didn't materialize quickly enough.) I do get your point, however. (And I, a happy road warrior with close to 100 day trips over 800 miles to my credit, have been reducing my driving and reducing my speed to 55 mph on the highway to save on fuel costs. As far as the new job and escape from Iowa is concerned, I got quite lucky.)
Maybe that New York Times guy who wrote the book about how mean the business world has become (he gave a few examples; he dreams for the return of pateralistic employers and unions, UAW-style in the 50s and 60s) could be a campaign staff member and even a convention speaker. (This guy was on an NPR show a few weeks ago. Steven Greenhouse — “The Big Squeeze,” that's who the guy is. This is ammo for aiming dead center at the GOP economically.)
http://www.stevengreenhouse.com/
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/…
The current downturn is not as bad as previous ones (which the Economist pointed out weeks ago, during some of the louder hype), but there is obvious cause for concern. (Note: More than one report can be reached on the page.)
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/826/jobs
In that economic light perhaps Clinton or Obama could do something psychological that I described months ago, using the current economic downturn (which is not anything like previous recessions that were over-hyped as this one has been) to link the current Bush and by extension the GOP to Bush the elder and his elitism (as well as earlier economic downturn). I still deny this merits much campaign mischaracterizing of McCain as “another Bush” (he's not been considered any kind of reliable conservative or Republican, and has spawned resentment and anger frequently rather than the gentler disappointment we have with our current President). But the economy obviously can and should be exploited by the current Opposition (which is what the Dems are about, hardly anything positive as well; listening to Harry Reid when interviewed about his book and what he says wrongly about Social Security and other matters exemplifies it).
“Ivy league liberals are terribly, commonly, elitist.”
Pssst, conservatives go to Ivy league schools too.
The “Ivy league liberal” sounds like dog whistle for “Northeastern liberal.” It's a generalization that doesn't hold water, I think, mainly because loads of conservatives go to good schools as well, and I think the majority of Americans look askance at people who go to college period, not just Ivy leagues.
Now, if you said “Berkley liberal,” or “Bob Jones conservative” I think that kind of generalization is more accurate and somewhat more appropriate.
Also, this is more appropriate criticism of Obama. Eventually, he'll have to put up or shut up. He's carried himself well during the Wright flap, but that's political damage control, not policy. It'll be interesting to see if he can continue to be the “non threatening something for everyone black man” on the economy, Iraq, foreign policy, etc.
Also btw Damozel, don't knock around Carter TOO much. Some of us remember 1980 presidential campaigns negotiating with terrorists (called treason) and then the subsequent administration selling arms to them (also treason). Yet Reagan smells like a rose and Carter is damned for a botched rescue op. Perceptions are funny things.
“The “Ivy league liberal” sounds like dog whistle for 'Northeastern liberal.' It's a generalization that doesn't hold water.”
That's not a generalization I've ever attempted to make. Northeastern liberals are found throughout the Northeast, encompassing a huge population, not only on Ivy League campuses. (Even Northeastern Republicans often are liberal!)
“Now, if you said '[Berkeley] liberal,' or 'Bob Jones conservative' I think that kind of generalization is more accurate and somewhat more appropriate.”
No disagreement.
“Also, this is more appropriate criticism of Obama. Eventually, he'll have to put up or shut up.”
Agreed completely. Substance, sometime, will be needed. To date he reminds me of Lamar Alexander. “Buchanan [i.e., McCain] has the wrong ideas, and Dole [i.e., Clinton] has the old ideas. I'm the candidate with new ideas.” WHAT new ideas?
Good response DLS
I'm a little busy now so I can't respond in full… but I wanted to address this:
See… when I brought up elitism, I actually came up with examples, some of them even having to do with substantive policy issues. You've just sort of thrown the word “elitist” out there as if it needs no explanation. Well, it does.
“Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it.”
Holy crap do you have that backwards. Hillary is nothing more than your standard politician who plays the polls instead of doing actual leading. She's not one for putting forward tough choices, or even taking early stands in the right on issues. This latest stunt with the gas tax is just another example of that.
Elitism is a social issue, not a political one. Politicians are by definition elite both in responsibilities and power over others. Calling another politician elitist is a game played to make people look like jerks, because EVERYONE sorta resents people in power and its easy to stoke that resentment. Our leaders are supposed to be better than us, thats why we vote for them and not run ourselves. However, give a whiff that these politicians actually think along those lines and its “who the hell does he think he is?”.
Just another silly game we play to distract us from reality.
[...] the packaging of candidates Matthew wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe ‘elitist’ Clinton and the [...]
SLAMFU: Your opinion.