While on hiatus, Weboy nonetheless sent along via email his thoughts about Sen. Clinton's speech. With all the hoopla, stagecraft and more speechifying that went on yesterday, his words may seem dated already. I beg to differ, and am posting them here. He elegantly sums up the major issue for us Clinton diehards following Clinton's speech, her gracious handling of the delegate vote and roll call, and the fierce oration from Bill Clinton last night - not to mention John Kerry, and even the old fuddy duddy Joe Biden (the BBC acknowledges his "Irish passion" and "Irish temper." Long live stereotypes!) The point: the ball is in Obama's court. Will he win us over fully, so we're not just voting against McCain, not just voting the Party line, not staying home or only voting down ticket on election day? Will we actually vote for the candidate himself?
The majority of delegates at this convention are women for the first time. 44% represent minority communities (CNN stat, not sure of definitions). 24% are African-American, the highest ever. These are the types of diversity I want to see in my party. What I don't want to see is a Republican nominating our Party's candidate for President at the roll call (Yes, that happened). I'm with Weboy here: Will Obama earn my vote? The Clintons have all but delivered it to him: the rest is up to him.
- Redstar
From Weboy:
Last night, Hillary Clinton did "everything she was supposed to do" and more. As one of her supporters, I know I am gratified that people got to see what I have known all along - that Hillary Clinton, in the process of campaigning, became an impressive speaker and one who is one of the best able to synthesize the ideas of what it is to be a Democrat into a coherent presentation of how these things all fit together.
That's not "bitterness" or "why can't we have her" talking. That's just the appreciation I have for who she is and what she's accomplished. And what she accomplished tonight was to convince me - a reluctant Democrat still not fully behind Barack Obama - that it was probably time to make the shift.
That's not the last part of closing the deal, however.
All along in this " we must have unity" discussion has been an underlying misunderstanding of what "unity" entails. Unity comes from the work of both sides, not just one. And what we saw, again last night, is that the divide between the two sides is real... and deep. And hard to bridge.
Consider that, even after her speech, there were many who were surprised that a) she throatily endorsed Obama and b) that she made a sustained, pointed critique fo the reasons why John McCain isn't the man to be the next President. I knew she would do both, as I think anyone who really understood her run did. Because she believes in the Democratic Party ideals, and has spent her life working for them. Because she is a team player who can see the bigger picture, not just her own success.
Fundamentally, the support for Hillary Clinton in the primaries came down to one thing: do you believe her, or not? Like many I started the campaign skeptical of her motives, her intent, her purpose. She had to have an agenda. It had to be "about her." It was, I admit, in New Hampshire, during her "gewnuine" moment of tearing up, that I realized... I believed her. I believed she meant what she was trying to accomplish, That she meant what she was saying about what moved her, what drove her to run.
Just as fundamentally, many of the deepest Obama supporters have never believed her - they don't trust her; in many cases they don't like her, have never liked her. Obama won - to the extent that what happened in the primaries can be called winning - in no small part because he became the consensus choice for a generalized antipathy to anything, and anyone, Clinton. That, as much as anything, is what has to do with the "superdelegate" movement to crown hum over her - a decision to try and move the Democratic Party away from dominance by the Clintons.
Last night, Mrs. Clinton did all that was asked of her. She accepted the result. She provided the bigger picture. She made it clear that she, and anyone who supported her because they believed in the things she talked about, should get behind the person who can get the things done that we care about. And that person, this time, is Barack Obama.
The rest is up to Obama.
I've long thought that what Barack Obama needs to do to appeal to someone like me - a lifelong Democrat who ebelieves in the things we stand for - shouldn't be so hard. I think Obama's campaign, for a long time, wasn't aimed at someone like me. It was aimed at people who needed to be inspired to share the goals I see as basic, and it was built around a notion of personal charisma. I've never been enamored of the Personality approach to politics - the can you like him, would you have a beer with him, or even does he inspire you personally notions of how to pic a candidate.
Tomorrow, Barack Obama needs to reach out to the people who are not invested in his charisma, to lay out an argument about why a Democrat not just "why him", why his notion of what it is to be a Democrat is the right one to lead us. It's not, necessarily a hard thing. But it needs to go beyond the usual messages of vaguely defined "hope" and "change" that he has offered, ceaselessly, since he started running. And it surely needs to go beyond the occasionally creepy overtones of cultshness that have sprung up around him. I don't think it's hard... but I am not necessarily hopeful. Outside of Mrs. Clinton, few people up on that stage have been especially inspiring at this moment; few have been able, as she did, to weave the ideas of the things we stand for and the things that need to be done, into a coherent, and appealing whole.
I would include Michelle Obama in that group. Along with rejecting personality politics, I am leery of embracing the trotting out of "Family Tableaux", and the "just like us" presentations. Families are unique entities, in many ways, and I admire more the people in public life who shield their kids from attention, rather than court it. No evidence of the wisdom of that was clearer than last night's appearance of a calm, poised Chelsea Clinton, who has, amazingly, a private life. I worry for Sasha and Malia and such a public life of being on display. Moreover, I think Michelle Obama continues to be sold as something she is not: clearly, she has a far more active role in her husband's political life and opinions of her own. Without spelling out the role she wants for herself as First Lady, she plays into traditional expectations of a silent partner, seen but not heard (much), diminished and secondary. I don't think people understand, as my mother mentioned, the truly "equal partner" nature of the marriage they have. Not explaining it will lead to misunderstandings.
Though he will, probably, sell himself more than anyone or anything else tonight, Bill Clinton is likely to provide yet another powerful moment at this convention, and a full throated support for electing Barack Obama. Obama hasbeen gven the gift he needs to bring all the elements together. The question is... will he? And does he even, now, understand what that means? Does he understand the people who truly are not like him, who don't see what he sees, or share the need for exhortation to a sense of inspiration they already have for the things we believe in? It's an open question, and how he answers it, tomorrow night, is the real test of whether we have come together behind one man, one candidate, one promise... or not. Hillary Clinton did what she was supposed to do, what she had to do... what I think she was called to do. The rest... is still unwritten. [link added]
Comments