The advice came fast and furious (rest assured, it’s no different at Clinton HQ in Arlington). Over the weekend, I sifted through more than four dozen smart, substantive suggestions, and here’s the most interesting stuff I found:
- Be a Mother: This was by far the most common response, and I agree that Clinton would be well served by “being herself” as much as possible. Neither I–nor the commenters–think this means something as simple as “showing her softer side.” Instead, Clinton should strive to recapture the tone and style she displayed to great effect at the end of last Thursday’s debate in Austin: supportive and compassionate, yet steely. The commenters called it maternal, and I think they’re right.
“The problem with Ms. Clinton’s Campaign was that as soon as she found her voice, she lost it,” wrote mnoorist. “What she needed to do is stop talking issues and policy–I don’t think people are listening, and start talking as a mother, and a woman running for the White House, By emphasizing her “womanness”–with subtlety, and connecting with women, she has a good chance of winning both ohio and texas. I think Obama has shown that people do not want to hear so much about policy as they do about themselves and their own struggles.”
howwiwowie agreed: “I will suggest she portrays herself as a FIGHTER (motherly though) to fight for what is the BEST for us because she CARES! Just like a mother cares for her children.”
pmc21c cited Chelsea as evidence of Clinton’s “skills and talents”–“her daughter exemplifies character,” he or she wrote. “It is character that we need most in the next president”–while mintchip was short and sweet: “Be a woman, and do what women do best. Connect.” Seeing as that’s easier said than done, Peaceful Warrior offered tips on how better to convey a motherly vibe: “Hillary should try to use a softer tone of voice when making personal appearances. She has a tendency to get shrill and that is a put off. Further, she should watch how she uses her hands when talking. She has a tendency to put her palms towards her audience. She should use an open palm–up, not down as an invitation to get those in the audience to become engaged in what she is saying.”
And votertoo sums it up best: “I definitely agree with other writers that Hillary should present herself as a woman with a mission. It is well known that women lead the home and more times than a few they lead the home without the support of a man… Hillary needs to be rock hard underneath but express herself not as a competition to men but as someone like our mother, who would always be there with the right decision.”
I doubt that getting maternal–however one does that–would alone be enough to resurrect Clinton at this point. But as a stylistic choice, it couldn’t hurt. Watch those palms!
- Push the Patrick Analogy: When the Clinton campaign accused Obama of “plagiarizing” lines from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, I assumed that there was more to the charge than met the eye. Namely, I guessed that Team Clinton was trying to suggest that Obama, like Patrick, his fellow inspirational African-American politician, would disappoint once elected. But I suspected that the Clintons were too worried about playing the race card to connect the dots.
But Commenter eagle14 says they should–pronto. Here’s his or her take:
I would put some additional focus on Deval Patrick. I’d run an ad/make an internet video which showed scenes of Obama’s rapturous crowds at his speeches, while a voiceover says something like “Inspirational words. Passionate supporters. But it’s all happened before.” At this point, the screen splits with Obama and Patrick on each side, in the same setting. “Barack Obama and Deval Patrick used the same campaign consultant, who crafted identical themes for both of them, and in some cases even had them use the same words.” Here you would play snippets of them using identical words - take your pick of the numerous examples. Then the image of Patrick fills the screen. “Deval Patrick became the governor of Massachusetts in a landslide victory. But what happened next?”
Here you’d freeze on Patrick’s face, and bring up newspaper clippings and headlines of Patrick’s very significant struggles and mistakes as well as magazine covers - Commonwealth magazine, the product of a Massachusetts think tank, put Patrick on the cover of a recent issue with the headline “Reality Sets In.” The voiceover would make the point that Patrick was not ready for prime time, and switch back to a split screen of Patrick and Obama and say something like “In these troubled times, we need a president who’ll be an experienced and capable leader and strong commander-in-chief from the first day in office. We can’t afford a president with a steep learning curve.” Then you’d go to a shot of Hillary and make the point she’s ready. The real-life example of Patrick running the same exact campaign and then crashing and burning after he wins may convince people that voting for Obama really is a gamble. Hillary could make the point that it’s no accident she won big in Massachusetts despite Kennedy, Kerry, and yes, Patrick going for Obama.
On paper, using Patrick and Massachusetts as a proxy for America under Obama is a smart strategy; it goes straight the heart of voter uncertainty about how Obama would actually deliver on his promises of change. That said, I still think race–and perhaps the political insider-ness of the whole analogy–will keep the Clintons from going there. But you never know.
- Call Obama a Republican: Clinton has long hinted that Obama is George W. Bush reincarnate: a likable guy who’s not ready for the job. Commenter annie08 would go one step further, attempting to “make the ‘post-partisan’ Obama look suspiciously Republican.” “I’d say the Republicans have been running this country into the ground since 1994 and what we don’t need is a Democratic president who secretly thinks they’re cool, mimics their style, and wants their approval,” she writes. “Democrats need to vote for a Democrat. And right now, as shown by her platform, her support, her commonsense talk about things that matter, the only Democrat running is Hillary Clinton.” It’s an interesting approach: appeal to the hardcore Dems at the heart of Hillary’s coalition–workers, older women, Latinos–by making a negative of Obama’s cooperative rhetoric. Here are some specifics:
I’d say “change” tells me about as much as Obama as “compassionate conservative” told me about George W. Bush.
I’d say Bush told us he was a business man, that’s all we needed to know, so we should trust him with the economy; Obama tells us he was a community organizer, that’s all we need to know, so we should trust him with our government. He says he’s got judgment; Bush told us he had character. It’s voters’ jobs to find out if the things candidates say are true – cuz it sure wasn’t true about Bush.
I’d say this candidate, Obama, has been endorsed by a Republican, former Senator Chafee.
I’d say Obama, doesn’t just court Republicans, he uses precise Republican talking points in praising that party, calling them the “party of ideas.” Is he an unwitting victim of the Republican noise machine? Is that who Democrats should nominate?
I’d say this candidate has been encouraging Republicans and Independents not just to vote for him, but to vote in OUR primaries, the Democratic primaries. This decision is about and among Democrats, but he doesn’t care about our party, just about winning.
I’d say Obama can’t possibly represent the Democratic party, the party of the little guy, because most of his money comes from latte liberals, urban intellectuals, people who call the Ivory Tower home. That’s his base. They can afford to drive their hybrids somewhere other than Walmart to shop, but that’s not most people.
Id say again, like Hillary has in the past, Obama voted for Cheney’s energy bill. Where did that talking point go? It was great!
Smart stuff. But although annie08’s framework would jibe well with Clinton’s current populist focus–a must right now in Texas and (especially) Ohio–it would also offer Obama yet another opportunity to argue that he’s the more electable candidate. To win in November, Obama would note, Democrats must woo swing voters, not the just the base. Clinton will continue to make annie08’s points, in a micro way–“We’ve seen the tragic results of having a president who didn’t have neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security,” she said in today’s foreign policy address. “We can’t let that happen again.” But I doubt she’ll center her entire campaign around the macro “too Republican” message, as the minuses probably outweigh the pluses. C’est la vie Clinton.
Any thoughts? Disagreements? Amendments? The comments are all yours.
