I thought Saturday's Democratic debate was a disaster for Senator Clinton, but all of the usual suspects, including my favorite blogs, seem to disagree. Being a minority of one should cause anyone to think a wee bit more. Naturally, I still think I'm right--but I'm trying to go about it in a different way. I think to understand her poor performances in Iowa and in the debate, we've got to widen the context a bit.
When I talk to graduate students about getting a job, we always deal with the "elevator talk." If you're at our major national convention and you happen to run into a potential employer in the elevator, you ought to be able to sum up your dissertation during the ride--hit the high points, let your audience know why it matters and, by implication, why they should hire you. I've always believed that a rhetorically coherent and appealing presidential candidate can do the same thing. Contrary to the old saying, no one can truly do it in a bumper sticker. But they ought to be able assess the state of the nation and make their case during that elevator ride. JFK in 1960: The nation is fat and lazy. To win the Cold War, we have to work harder, sacrifice more, and fight for the right. We have to get this country moving again. Reagan in 1980: The government is strangling the heroism of the American people. Free them from government and they'll build not only a great nation, but also a free world. Clinton in 1992: We're in the grip of a failed economic theory, one that says give money to the rich and all will prosper. Instead, put people first. Give them the opportunity, they'll take the responsibility, and together we can build a glorious community. These were not simplistic appeals--Kennedy built off of a series of nationally respected foundation reports in the 50's in making that case, Reagan profited from a decade of conservative think tank research, and Clinton drew heavily on Robert Reich's The Work of Nations, among other efforts. But good candidates can boil their cases down to the elevator talk and their specific positions and issues flow from that talk.
Hillary Clinton has no elevator talk. At best, she argues as a classic Progressive--I'm more competent and I can make the system work. But as her husband ought to tell her, she's talking about herself and not the American people. Edwards: The system is corrupt. Drive the moneychangers from the temple by electing me and a bright new day will dawn. Obama: We've lost the better angels of our nature in partisan bickering and attack politics. If you hope, if you work, if you build, I can lead. If I can lead, everyone wins. Clinton: "Can we just have a -- can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute.... 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." That's what she said Saturday night. And it does make a certain sort of sense. But if there's no larger vision, no case to be made beyond the candidate's competence (see: Dukakis, Michael), then you lose.
I also find it passing strange that Bill Clinton's life partner believes that words are not action, that other candidates are raising "false hopes," and that the presidency is not a rhetorical office. On Saturday night, Obama and Edwards were running for president. Senator Clinton was running for Prime Minister. There's a difference. President Clinton often fondly quoted the Bible: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
No elevator talk, you're right! Though her bumper sticker does speak of strength (militarily in my eyes).
Her new theme, change, that she hammered us with the other night is sadly self-evident. The only thing changing in her campaign is HRC herself as she tries to catch up to our junior senator.
I was pleased to see Obama take her on for her assertion, "words are not action," with "words are inspirational."
A losing track for her especially with the rhetoricians.
Posted by: grace | January 07, 2008 at 06:36 AM