Hillary's Closing Smart Choice Rally

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:35


IMG_0275.JPG

So I just got back from Hillary Clinton's closing rally at Greenspun Junior High School in Henderson, a suburb of Las Vegas.  While it wasn't a bad rally, it certainly wasn't particularly high energy.  The audience was heavily white and female, with a western surburban ambience of cowboy hats and a sense of aggrieved populism.  In the last event before the caucuses in Iowa, the Clinton campaign was dying on its feet, and you could tell in the despondency of the organizers, the low energy of the crowd, and the sagging sense of petty doom.  Tonight it did not feel that way.  The Clinton camp is pretty confident, though tired.

Still, I've been to many political rallies, and while this wasn't as bad Clinton's closing Iowa rally, I found the whole experience a little off-key.  The room was dotted with yellow signs that said 'Hillary' and 'Smart Choice', which is not exactly inspiring. 

IMG_0278.JPGFormer gubernatorial candidate Dina Titus spoke for some time, then Rory Reid, Harry Reid's son and the Chair of Clinton in Nevada, introduced Bill, Chelsea, Hillary, and oddly, Wes Clark.  It was like 'here's a nice family, and also a General'.  Behind them in the dead-center of the crowd facing the cameras, Gerry McEntee, head of AFSCME, impishly held a sign that said 'Culinary Workers for Clinton'.  IMG_0289.JPG  The Culinary workers have gone for Obama, so I suppose McEntee was encouraging dissidents to caucus with Clinton.

Bill Clinton was his usual charming self, though he is wearing on me.  Hillary whispered to him before he spoke, and he said 'I'm getting my instructions, I'm getting good at following them', and all the middle aged women in the audience laughed.  Obama has a standard joke along those lines as well, as does Bush; apparently you can never go wrong with fake self-deprecation in American politics.  Bill referenced the new poll out that shows Clinton up 9, and talked abut how it's important to get people to the caucuses in proportion they answered the survey.  Bill said that the people in the room were 'insurgents' challenging someone who everyone thought was better organized.  It was an odd attempt to frame the Clinton organization as both unsophisticated and powerful, but it just sounded like the campaign was disorganized.  This is not an insurgent campaign, Bill.

Hillary's speech was reasonable.  She is still not a good speaker, and went on for a good amount of time on various wonky topics.  The energy in the room stayed a relatively constant level, which often it doesn't as people get bored, and she peppered her speech with economic populist rhetoric, including a few digs at the rich.  She attacked the nine figure compensation package for the CEO of Countrywide, and said that under her Presidency, there will be a 'higher set of standards for the people that run the corporations in America'.  That got huge applause, as did her promise to end tax credits that incentivize outsourcing, and discussing a clean energy future.  After a laundry list of items she's going to get done, she posed a rhetorical question of how all of that would be possible.  Her answer?  By reaching across the aisle, like she has done in the Senate.  I hope she's checked with the Republicans on that one.

Hillary also tried a clumsy attack on Obama, claiming he called the Republicans the party of ideas without alluding to him or his statement.  It didn't connect.  Overall, the red meat parts of the speech going after corporate interests and rich people seemed to draw applause, as did her one mention of ending the war in Iraq.  Still, none of this really mattered; the crowd was loving Clinton.  One women behind me kept nodding and saying how wonderful and smart she is, and at one moment when Hillary was talking about outsourcing began asserting that Clinton would stop NAFTA.  These were true believers.

While you can't really tell anything from one rally, I get the sense that the Clinton camp is measured in this contest.  Nevada is not do or die for them, and there is no desperation here like there was in Iowa.

Tomorrow the caucuses get going at 11am.  I'll be at one on the strip.

Matt Stoller :: Hillary's Closing Smart Choice Rally

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Does anyone else look at those "Smart Choice" signs (0.00 / 0)
and think they're unveiling a new line of microwavable food products?  Like "Healthy Choice," only cheaper?

The font is so... Safeway or Lucky's.

One Million Strong --- Join up!


A new fake butter (0.00 / 0)
That's what I thought--there may even actually be one by that name.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Insurgency? Against Versailles (4.00 / 2)
First off, I'm for Edwards but the frame for Nevada by Hillary's camp should be obvious.  Nonetheless ...

"This is not an insurgent campaign", well maybe it is.

The Clintons are running against two establishments in this caucus.  One of them is clearly the leadership of the Culinary Workers Union.  The other establishment is the MSM.  The MSM from day one has been in love with Barack Obama and Hillary from way past has been sparring against it.  She after all coined the term the "Vast right wing conspiracy" more than ten years ago.

The semi-stated plot line is that the "invisibles" are running against the Cool Kids.  The rich kids.  The bosses at the union and the bosses at work (the dig at Countryside).  The pretty overt sexism of Chris Matthews and crowd.  This is Legally Blonde (the first one)with Hillary as Elle Woods and her target audience being the woman doing nails at the beauty shop.  Let him laugh. Let em leer like that obnoxious law partner that wanted Elle for sex but not her brains and wound up getting neither as she hijacked the law case.

Somebody at MyDD (I think) came up with the statistic that Jesse Jackson had won six primaries or caucuses in 1984 and 11 more in 1988 while Hillary was the first woman after 36 others tried and failed to win one of these.  The subplot was that the win over sexism was a bigger hurdle and was being ignored by the MSM.  Talk about "invisible."

Swingstate Project references a nice piece that creates a ratio of "elite" votes to working class votes in New Hampshire.  Hillary's ratio for the state was 0.81 (similar to past Democratic nominees), Edwards was 0.87, and Obama's was 1.20 (or was it 1.30).  At any rate, Obama's ratio was more elite than Gary Hart but less elite than Bill Bradley.  Obama so far is the "elite" candidate and Hillary is the working class candidate.  Spin it as you want but it allows the Clintons to use an insurgency motif.


Putting him in the company of Hart and Bradley (0.00 / 0)
makes him the insurgent candidate against the party establishment, no?

1. I don't think it's worthwhile to get into an argument about which hurdle, gender or race, is higher.  They're both historic.  The White House was segregated up through the 50's.

2. In the Culinary fight, Hillary sided with casino bosses this week in trashing the union, putting up a conference call with them, claiming the union intimidated its members, questioning Obama on gambling.  That's helpful.

3. Does anyone even watch Chris Matthews?

4. The MSM spent most of the year talking about Obama's lack of substance even after he laid out an array of policy proposals, questioning his fortitude on foreign policy, detailing the allegations about his childhood.  The Clintons still get more coverage and they still own the Democratic party establishment, even if more and more congresspeople are breaking ranks.

One Million Strong --- Join up!


[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
The author of the one page piece, Dante Scala, argued that despite his loss in New Hampshire because he had a more broad based support than most of the other losers.  But since the purpose of my comment was to show why Hillary's campaign could be framed as an insurgent one I went with the very obvious class angle.

Say what you want, but the leadership of the Culinary Union is a huge piece of the establishment in Nevada Democratic poloitics.  I have been reading for at least six months how their endorsement pretty much was a guarantee of caucus victory.

Obviously, lots of newspaper and TV people pay attention to Chris Matthews and Tim Russert.  I personally avoid them like the plague but he is just the worst of Versailles.

The fawning nature of the MSM coverage of Obama has been extremely well documented.  Everybody except the Obama followers believes this.  You guys can't be convinced but certainly don't try to convince me otherwise.

Look psericks.  You started with snark on this thread and then went on to the typical Obama is the pure, the virtuous, the offended, the always right bull.  I already chose to leave MyDD as my blog home (after over three years there) because of the overbearing nature of the Obama followers.  I am coming very close to leaving this site as well.

You can't leave anybody's point unchallenged or accept that anybody might have a point except for Obama and his followers.  This does not convince anyone.  Except that Obama has the lowest favorables and the highest unfavorables among Democrats.

Other Obama followers on line have not taken this course but a significant portion have.  Matt did not see how anyone could see Hillary as an insurgent campaign.  Well, clearly, a case can be made.  You sure don't buy it but I know that already.


[ Parent ]
Shirley Chisholm (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure I quite got your comment on primaries, it may be more complicated than you make it sound, but Shirley Chisholm won some primaries in 1972. And she was both black and female.

As to the insurgent message, I think that needs to be made much more explicit. Matthews and co. have jumped the shark in their attacks on her, but this needs to be exploited. Deliberately calling out him and his ilk as dyed-in-the-wool Hillary-haters, then waiting for the characteristically OTT response, could certainly work. But at first glance, she just doesn't seem angry or combative enough to an insurgent - or at least the way that she's combative does not come across as insurgent.

By elite voters, do you mean richer and more highly educated? Because whilst it's possible to run an anti-intellectual campaign, that generally requires right-wing demagoguery, whilst a class-based campaign is much more to the left. For a Democrat to run against those two groups simultaneously in a primary is very difficult.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Shirley Chisholm (0.00 / 0)
It is claimed that Shirley Chiosholm won one primary, New Jersey's, in 1972.  The problem is that the documentation is shaky.  The New Jersey Secretary of State's (or is it Division of Elections?) web site only covers general elections that far back.  Ms. Chisholm's NY Times obituary specifically stated that she did not win any primaries or caucuses.  Since much of NJ is in their circulatiion zone, this is something one would expect to be accurate.

My best guess is that the idea for an insurgent campaign may well be Bill's rather than Hillary's but I would have no idea.  Her natural constituency clearly includes a lot of white working class women.  Nearly every Hillary backer that I know personally fits the bill: 30 to 60 years of age, female, high school or some college, semi tuned in to politics but definitely charged up about the idea of a woman as President.

The concept of "elite" is simply appropriated from Dante Scala's piece.  He listed elite and working class towns but in the page plus I read did not really define them.  Income and education would be likely components of that definition.  Hillary seems to be running a bit of a class based campaign but less so than Edwards. 

"Intellectuals" have been fodder for the political grist mill for decades and probably more.  The first characterization of any Democratic politician that I remember comes from the 1956 campaign (I was 5 at the time):  Adlai Stevenson was called an egg head by the adults.  I had no clue at the time what that meant.  They kept refering to a picture of him where he was shown with a hole in the sole of his shoes. To a 5 year old that meant that he needed new shoes.  I guess the adults were calling him an airhead.

If Hillary did find her voice in New Hampshire, the message will be mildly class based and appeal to working class women (and to a lesser extent working class men).

I still see Obama as the clear favorite in this race.  He has the media in his hip pocket and has as much (or more) money than Hillary.  Media and money normally determine these things.

As an aside, I wonder if the slew of Obama endorsements is a wise thing.  Want to get viewed as establishment?  It sure did not help Dean.


[ Parent ]
Hmm (0.00 / 0)
http://www.geocities...

This map suggests Chisholm also won Louisiana and Missisippi, but I have no idea what evidence this is based on.

I see a lot of truth in what you say, but I still think messaging is the problem - making a Clinton campaign sound insurgent is a very delicate task, and I'm just not sure that can be believably done without deliberately attacking some segments of their base in ways that are more often done by Republicans.

It's possible that an appeal to working-class white women could be couched in terms of not letting elites make the decision, but such an appeal would be inherently vulnerable to a counter-attack from the Obama campaign.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Hard for a woman to do (0.00 / 0)
In fairnbess to Hillary, it is hard for a woman to be an insurgent without sounding shrill--or like Madame Defarge.  In this respect she really has to walk a fine line.  She wants to be presidential and competent, while Obama is the Hope candidate this time around, and that also makes it difficult to portray herself as an insurgent or leader of an insurgency.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Off Topic (0.00 / 0)
I guess you are too modest to discuss the "Now" broadcast, but I thought it was well done and you got a chance to explain your actions without any "spin" by the media.

Congrats!

Policies not Politics


disappointment (0.00 / 0)
One women behind me kept nodding and saying how wonderful and smart she is, and at one moment when Hillary was talking about outsourcing began asserting that Clinton would stop NAFTA. 

If Clinton wins, I hope her supporters aren't too disappointed with what they get.


Seriously. (0.00 / 0)
NAFTA is one of the major reasons I dislike her candidacy. Talk about niave...

[ Parent ]
We only need to remember New Hampshire (0.00 / 0)
Everyone was amazed at the Obama rallies.  The size, the lines, the energy, etc.

Bill Clinton trashed by MSNBC (0.00 / 0)
Watching Morning Joe this morning I was floored by the comments by Barnacle and Buchanan and Scarborough. I don't watch much, so maybe this has been going on for sometime but it was new to me.

They said with straight faces that Bill Clinton, and the Clintons generally, will say and do whatever necessary to win. That their quest for power is so great that they will do anything necessary to win. That the whole drug thing was calculated. They showed a clip of Bill talking about Obama and then proceeded to explain how it was all a lie--how he has a long habit of lying--how his character is flawed. They went on for several minutes.

Amazing when the TV turns on an ex-president and begins discussing his character flaws....not a good sign for Hillary even if she wins today.


Yep... We are in real trouble... (0.00 / 0)
This is all I need when I wake up to this:

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
McCain at 50%, Leads Two Democrats in U.S.
http://www.angus-rei...
January 19, 2008

And still Hillary's negatives are being swept under the carpet.
http://www.pollingre...

Our republican-lite candidate(s) is/are going sink like a lead balloon.

Booman has a good posting IMVHO that sums it up...

Truth Challenged Republicans and the Clintons
by BooMan
http://www.boomantri...

Good one...!

I just hope if she does win she will get a enough money from her backers to get PAID volunteers to work for her.



[ Parent ]
Did you read your own link? (0.00 / 0)
McCain's lead is largest over Obama (50% - 44%), not Clinton (50% - 47%). I'm not for Clinton, but why does she do better than Obama if she's so unelectable?

[ Parent ]
Yes I did... (0.00 / 0)
McCain winning on the 'experience' factor maybe?

However, it still doesn't explain why 'her' negatives are so much higher than Obama's?

http://www.pollingre...
http://www.pollingre...

So I still think there is an 'electability' issue in there...

What say you?


[ Parent ]
Hey, (0.00 / 0)
everyone wants to position themselves as insurgents running against the powers that be.  The main thing I'm liking about the Nevada campaign is that a lot of articulate Democrats are running around the state and getting people's names on mailing lists and this is only good for Democratic politics in Nevada in the future.  I think Clinton will win this one, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Remember how the pundits dissed Bill's SOTU's? (0.00 / 0)
Everybody but me and the voters seem to hate it when Hillary Clinton gets "wonky" and tries to tell us what she's going to do. It's certainly not exciting, but her husband knew it worked--and it will work even better after eight years of President Moron.

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search