Critic's notebook: Hillary Clinton's concession speech

Hillary Rodham Clinton made her last appearance as a presidential candidate -– for the time being -- when she conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama on Saturday morning in Washington. Speaking from a low stage in the light-filled, colonnaded atrium of the National Building Museum with the crowd arrayed before her and, as has become the custom, behind her, she seemed to be floating in a sea of love.

She was late to the event, as to the concession. Her delay in acknowledging Obama as the presumptive candidate -– expected on the night of the last primaries -- kept eyes, cameras and cable news commentary unusually focused upon her. And as concession speeches go, it was something of a celebration and a self-celebration. It was both a private moment -- a thank you to the people who supported her campaign, and clearly still do -– and a political event, with ramifications for Obama, the Democratic Party and herself. Her speech contained a resounding endorsement of her former opponent (six minutes in, it was inevitably noted, but she circled back to it at the end), a reminder of what she had accomplished and a list of work to be done. She was centered and gracious and impossible to lampoon.

As with her opponent, the symbolic import of her candidacy is undeniable. The first presidential contest in which neither of the two front-runners was a white male, Clinton v. Obama was bound to excite
passions, positive and negative. Whether it made a difference in the primaries, Clinton was subject throughout her campaign to gender-based ridicule that would have cost people their jobs had the point been race or religion. (“Many of the most prominent people on TV behaved like middle schoolers,” party chairman Howard Dean told the New York Times.) Within the popular culture that helps define and in some ways contain the political culture, sex is the last arena where people are allowed, even encouraged, to act like pigs.

Chris Matthews' contention during MSNBC coverage of the New Hampshire primary that "the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around"; Mike Barnicle's description of her (on MSNBC's “Morning Joe”) as "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court"; William Kristol's statement on “Fox News Sunday” that "white women are a problem, that's ... you know, we all live with that"; and Tucker Carlson's, on MSNBC's “Tucker,” that “when she comes on television I involuntarily cross my legs” -- these are all lines that might be delivered on situation comedies without comment. Indeed, it's the sort of thing you hear on television every day.

And yet television has also painted the future. “Could a woman really serve as commander in chief?” Clinton asked Saturday morning. “Well, I think we answered that one.” But the fact that she was the presumptive nominee even before primary season began means we were already prepared for the possibility. Just as a long line of black presidents on big screens and small makes the actual election of an African American seem inevitable -- indeed, it may be imminent -- so does the fictional depiction of strong women in what were once exclusively male roles signal a real-world sea change: I thought of Clinton recently while reviewing a new cop show, “In Plain Sight,” starring Mary McCormack as a federal marshal, one of a host of easy-to-believe tough women the media now unapologetically offers, from vampire-slaying Buffy to Mary McDonnell as the president of all humanity on “Battlestar Galactica.” In dreams begin possibilities: A Madam President is only a matter of time.

-- Robert Lloyd

Comments

[Bob]

Hillary brings new meaning to the phrase a day (days) late and a dollar (10s of millions) short. She was slow to acknowledge Obama as the nominee and invested over 10 million in her campaign; she wants the money back.

There ought to be a rule limiting the amount of money a candidate can invest in their campaign or stipulate that any investment is non-refundable. This would eliminate an advantage enjoyed by well-off contenders like the Clintons.

In the mean-time, donate your hard-earned money to bail the multimillionaire out of debt! After all, the Clintons only made 108 million!

Hillary should stick to investing in Cattle Futures instead of Presidential Campaigns; she turned a 10,000 percent profit with the Cattle!

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind

http://klintons.com

[Kathy]

I love Hilary Clinton and all that she stands for. I wish her continued success.

[James R Leary]

Is it just me ...

HRC spent a great deal of the last 10 years building up her credentials in foreign policy and military preparedness. Yet, the party she prepared for has shifted left and just wants to abandon foreign policy as inconvenient and prepare the military for shrinking to pay for other liberal priorities like health care and college for illegal immigrants.

No wonder she failed to even mention it.

Or is it just me ....

[LaWanda]

Hillary Clinton's detractors and haters (many of whom are coincidentally Obama supporters) always seem to complain about whatever she does and deride her ignoring the fact that she has more supporters who voted for her during this primary season than any other candidate in the history of such things. While Obama claims to be "a uniter" (where have we heard that one before?), he seems to be the one late to the festivities regarding his odds of winning the Nov. election without H. Clinton's support(ers) by finally asking for his minions to stop shredding her publicly since he and his campaign staff have figured out he needs her and those voting for her to come out for him in a big way. The young and political neophyte Obamatons, which Obama's campaign operatives have been crowing about, haven't figured out that HRC is an important cog in the Democrat machinery and thus crucial to an Obama victory this Fall, let alone in the Senate if an Obama presidency becomes a reality. It doesn't appear that Obama commands enough respect among his supporters to get them to call off the dogs, so to speak, since he began calling for party unity. So keep trashing HRC and WJ Clinton, Obamite sandwich eaters, the only thing you'll insure is an Obama loss and further marginalization of what he stands for along with greater divides between the "Haves," the "Have-nots" and the working classes; the "Haves" will always get by, the rest of us will continue to struggle. Lastly, the vapid talking heads in the mainstream media discussed in this blog appear to be stoking the flames of hatred of Obama supporters for HRC, makes you wonder what their true intentions are, or don't most of you look that many moves ahead?

[Raul McCreary]

Hello James.

Yes it's just you; and you and the rest of the ignorant nationalist-militarists have spent the U.S. into bankruptcy -- ha, ha, ha -- and not even on things FOR THE PEOPLE. You're so out of it, you can't even comprehend that taxes are for shared expenses -- not military entertainment. And, the American public doesn't revolt, because they have no idea how much a $Billion is or how much a $Trillion is -- because they are the stupidest people in the world (really!!!).

52% of American's taxes go either directly or indirectly to pay for current and past military expenses.

Rah, Rah ... GO ARMY!!! Let's bomb SOMEBODY and watch it on TV, then we can all feel that we are better than every other country.

The ignorance is indeed profound. I'm extremely glad I live in Europe now, and I actually get to see my tax money come back to me!!!!

But, suck it up, James -- because it's only going to get worse over there. And, it's all your fault:)

[Reuben & Dianne]

She has earn the respect and admiration of our entire family. We wish her well and we'll love to see her as VP.

[Jake]

It's interesting that in a critical review (and an essentially positive notice) that remarks on the sexism still inherent culturally, people still comment on the democratic party race as if talking about their favorite college football team being included in (or left) that mythical "BCS college football national championship."

Some folks really do have way too much time on their hands.

[Hen]

Had Clinton focused on the issues, she probably would have been the nominee.

She prepared herself well, taking cautious middle of the road positions in the Senate as she did in her NY campaigns, waiting to attack Don Rumsfeld when it was a safe photo op--long after he'd done his damage in the war she approved-just in case it was quick and popular--without reading the intelligence for herself. (She claimed she was miraculously well-informed without it.)

Instead of presenting the well-crafted platform announced on her website, she focused on spinning and triangulating, changing the rules of the game as she went along.

She's finally left with her popularity with women, seemingly bred by the Hillaryland hen party than any clear articulation of feminism--"Bubba strayed, but I survived." Through it all, there has been her insistence that she's a fighter [Good thing, she seldom showed herself much of a thinker] and a need to stretch her real achievements and to engage in phony identification with "working" people. Her tin ear betrayed her as she tried to mimic what she thought was ordinary speech, (Yale educated, Connecticut bred Bush does it better), and most in the "liberal media" failed to ask about her actions as a Wal-Mart board member.

She'll not be President. Too bad, after all that work and money, I guess. But we have more important things to worry about.

[peter]

Hillary lost...Obama won...fair and square....She pulled all her dirty tricks to win, that didn't work! ...She insulted Obama...Obama took the high road......She lied (the Bosnia incident) to win the primaries in Texas, OH and PA....Without the Clintons (read, dishonest people), America will be a better place to live....

[Daniell Kuhr]

As a Democrat, I will NOT vote for Obama (Nobama!). The Obama sycophants are wolves in sheep clothing. Since they can dish the vitiriol, my response is "Screw Obama!"

[TJ]

LaWanda, I'm sorry but Hillary really has no one to blame but herself. She had a 30 point advantage over any potential Democratic party candidate for over three years. That sense of inevitably made her and her campaign strategist far too confident and complacent. Obama's camp on the other hand knew his candidacy would be a serious uphill battle and planned accordingly. They had to think smarter if they had any real chance of defeating Hillary. Thus, they had to be far more creative in their strategy. In the end, they were. They outflanked Hillary's campaign in Iowa and virtually of all of the caucus states. That gave Obama both momentum and credibility. By the time Hillary's campaign realised its own failings, it was really too late. Hillary did fire her campaign manager and adjust her strategy, but by that time she was playing catch-up. You can say all you want about Obama or his relative political inexperience, but at the end of the day, his campaign team was the more effective team. Personally, I think that says a lot about who would be the more intelligent president. Obama clearly understands the importance of hiring intelligent, creative people who know how to win against all odds. That said, if I actually vote for anyone, it will probably be Obama because I have a lot of respect for brilliance of his campaign. To me, that says a lot about the type of executive he would be as president. Hillary, on the other hand, has shown herself on at least two occasions to be a relatively poor leader (executive) 1: Her attempt at reforming health care after the 1992 election was a complete and utter disaster - her plan never even made it to a vote even though Bill Clinton was elected in large part on his promise the reform health care. 2: With an enormous lead in polls for more than three years to be the eventual Democratic nominee, she seemingly found a way to lose. Hillary doesn't seem to be a person who can actually win the big battles. After eight years of the failed Bush presidency, with all its lost battles, we need someone who has show some experience at winning what is perceived by most to be an un-winnable battle.

[MG]

LaWanda: Well stated!!!

[Gary C.]

If there is one thing Hillary has proven by her speech it is that she is a liar.
She deceived us by saying on Tuesday she would not endorse and by giving
the impression she would go all the way to the convention, then, giving her
endorsement on Saturday.
Obama is just as bad if not worse. He should have known better than to
to try to get her to work for him after they have been slamming each other
throughout the campaign. So, he looks like just as big of a liar and he's been
caught in lies anyhow.
If two candidates want the White House so bad that they have to so badly
and obviously deceive in order to obtain it, then, they don't have the best
interests of the voters at heart.
And, why the secret meeting??? If she freely wanted to give an endorsement,
she could have just done it. God knows what all was discussed in that secret
meeting, and, God knows we'll never know the complete details.
As a former Clinton backer, I now proudly display my Vote for McCain bumper
sticker. No poltician is totally honest, but, at least McCain doesn't make friends out
of former enemies, or, say one thing and then turn around and do another. There
comes a time when any politician must say one thing and then turn around and
do another if it's necessary, but, they don't try to make friends out of former
enemies...except for some, such as Clinton and Obama.
I'm tired of being deceived and when it's so obvious, and, therefore, McCain
gets my vote.

[islandtal]

Gary C: You said ..."they don't try to make friends out of former enemies..." Hillary and Barack were not enemies. They belong to the same party and were just competing politically for the nomination. We knew that at some point one wouldn't make it and they would have to back their former rival. There's nothing new in that.

[rosshangover]

Hillary gave an outstanding speech! Shame on you people who continue to bash her. If Obama is so much about unity - where was the man during her concession speech? Yeah, golfing during her speech. Obama showed no interest and he going to have to work very hard to earn my vote in November. I certainly don't want another president going to Camp David like George W. Bush for next 8 years in office! Obama should have been there with Hillary or showed some interest watching it at home. He shows no interest in connecting with Clinton supporters. This is the reason why I didn't vote for him. His arrogance gets the best of him.

[Danny Bloom]

I felt her concession speech was an affront to Obama. I watched it live on CNN. She seemed to be reading her speechwriter's speech, and seemed more interested in talking about her, than about the party or Obama. She was still saying ME ME ME when she should have been saying, I gave it my best shot, now let's unite and elect a Democrat! Instead, she spent 30 minutes talking about herself again, as she did last week too. Doesn't she get it? Don't her handlers get it?

Seems nobody has mentioned this. In all the commentary, nada. She kept going on and on about how great a woman president would be. That is not what this is about. This is about leading a nation out of war, out of energy dependence, out of econmic trouble, out of climate change problems. Doesn't matter if it's a woman. It did matter in her campaign yes. But this was a concession speech. She should have been nobler, less self-centered. Anyone else would have said: "I gave it my best shot, thanks you guys for supporting me, let's get on with the show now." I give her a C minus for a very lousy speech. ME ME ME. Get over yourself, Mrs. Clinton.

[Vicki Wagner]

Well come on guys...Do you know how hard it is for a WOMAN to compete against a man in a man's world? Of course Hillary had to be cautious, she had to play the fence, she had to appease people and she had to look tough. Men have no idea how easy they have it. As a stand up comedian, one of the first things a coach will tell you is- if a woman and a man performed the EXACT same material- the man would get laughed at more- simply for being a man. Hillary took the steps necessary to earn this election- she was well prepared and she was the right choice for President. Barack is basically strolling in here without the chops really but with some pretty great backing- Oprah Winfrey - the powerhouse gave her blessing and many others. (But look at Bush- he strolled in too- the fortunate son- and did a good job getting all you Republicans to believe in him so who knows?)
Maybe Barack is a nice guy he is good looking and charismatic, but ready for President? Who knows? He is a great speaker so he will have a leg up going into debates with John McCain- but I guess everyone forgot his- "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, bomb bomb Iran" song. how quickly we all forget. I think Barack has a leg up on McCain simply because he has been in the news every single day for the past year...McCain has not. This contest between Hillary and Barack served them both very well. Who among us doesn't know who they are now- and on a first name basis. No one says "John" but we all say Hillary or Barack. From a political science perspective, it was genius actually. Great publicity and great press every single day- name recognition? Well they have it!
Clinton did a great job and yes she made mistakes, because she was treading too carefully- now if she had just gone all out- all you men and some women would have just called her a bitch. That's what you say when women are getting ahead- a man can say the same thing and he is a go-getter. Funny how hypocritical you are.
Yes, it will take a while for Barack to court us, but as Democrats do we have any choice? Do we really want another Republican in that seat? I don't. The Bible thumping party has got to go!
LaWanda, I like what you had to say- some of the others, not bad contributions and the person who wrote about the Obamaites is dead on. At the CA primaries at H&H, the Obama supporters stood around calling Hillary the devil with a forked tongue- now that's no way to love thy neighbor.
There has been a lot of damage and only time will tell what will happen.

[Frank]

The Pied Piper from Illinois,
or The song Barack Obama pipes to his followers:

They followed merrily after,
These wonderful speeches with donations and laughter.
Of all the pleasant sights he had them visualize,
Which the Piper promised ahead would lie.
For he led us, he said, to a "Hopeful" land,
from 20 years in a church
where never he made a stand,
to where everything was strange and new,
and "a change we can believe in",
was the tune he blew.
"You chose not to listen
to your doubts and your fears",
voting blindly, and following his soothing words,
but the Pied Piper story is a lesson to learn,
vote carefully,
because the moral of the story is,
following a "blessed" piper from nowhere
whose tune is what you follow,
could very well lead us,
to a place from whence there is no return.

Hillary stick around, we may desperately need you...even as VP. We are being blindly led down the path to a possible calamity by a piper from out of nowhere, who pipes smooth words and visuals of change, and who's closest friends are rats.

[Carole Monferdini]

LaWanda, your comments were dead on right!!! And also Vicki Wagner. You Obama-ites, when will you EVER learn????? Stop it with the negativity against Hillary Clinton. She gave a fantastic speech today, which should unite the party. Makes me think that you're actually Republican operatives getting in here and mixing it up and trying to keep the Dems from uniting! Otherwise, why in God's name would you keep on being sore winners???? Stop it, already. As HRC said in her speech today, this election is too important for people to vote against their own self-interests just because they feel disenfranchised, disrespected, disgruntled --well, just dissed in general. It is now time to stop the bickering and pull together -- and this comes from a Hillary supporter who gave hard-earned money to her campaign. Now, everybody -- STOP IT!! Think about the alternatives -- and think long and hard. Well, just THINK, okay?

[Solange Gautier]

Although I as a woman would have loved to support a female candidate, I could not stomach Ms. Clinton. Her insincerity and downright lies revealed her less-than-admirable character. When she was called out for lying about the sniper fire, the level of her arrogance--delivered with a dismissive shoulder movement--was absolutely disgusting.

As the primary scene developed, her political "face" changed to fit whatever she thought might help her win--including thinly-veiled racial references--which I found totally unacceptable, and the dirtiest of politics. It also reminded me of living as a white person in the South when it was segregated. And shame on Mr. Clinton for some of his comments!!!

I prefer people who stand for something solid, ethical, and true. Isn't it alarming that such a statement is often dismissed now as unrealistic, naive, or "stupid"?

We need to bring back a sense of honor and integrity in our American leaders!
I hope we as a nation can unite in strength to solve some of our very serious problems.
Long Live America!