-
sponsorship
By Derek Thompson
Al Gore’s speech last night in Denver was the opposite of his failed 2000 presidential campaign—funny, fresh, even a little inspiring. John Kerry’s speech the night before was quotable and downright side-splitting compared with his wooden self in 2004. And Hillary Clinton’s speech on Tuesday? The sometimes chilly candidate was praised for crushing at the convention center.
Why do we love speeches by candidates who lost? Do we lower the bar out of pity? Or do they really jump higher?
It probably has more to do with the bar. Presidential candidates have to be unflappable but human, talented but humble, transcendent but relatable. But if you lost an election, there’s no such requirement. That’s why Hillary got to talk about the "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits." Al Gore mocked his own narrow loss. Even Kerry snuck in a line about McCain "being for it before he was against" certain policies.
But self-deprecation isn’t why their speeches succeeded. It’s because they transcended the criticisms that dogged them throughout their campaigns. Hillary seemed more emotive and put her legacy in the context of women’s rights and civil rights. Kerry looked comfortable and aggressive, though he was neither in 2004. And Gore flashed the same hip wonkiness he’s rocked for years—that is, the years after 2000.
If there’s a lesson here, it’s not that losing makes you charismatic. It’s that running for president makes you stiff. Message control is paramount to modern campaigns, but it’s also a candidate’s straitjacket hemmed in by voter interests, poll-tested buzz words, and obligatory nods to patriotism and family. In 2004, Kerry played the military card with painful stiltedness, saluting the audience, "reporting for duty," and yammering about Old Glory. In 2008, Kerry played the consummate Obama advocate, mixing direct attacks on John McCain with flairs of humor that electrified the convention center.
Sen. Clinton slouched off the shackles of candidacy even faster. Often criticized for her coldness on the stump, she gave a generous concession speech in June that drew raves. In Denver, she summed up a central issue—the moral smallness of Hillary-first Democrats like PUMA—better than anyone "I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me?" she asked. "Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids?" It was the perfect question, balancing common sense with sentimentality. If she had learned to master that combo eight months ago, Thursday might have represented a different Democratic first.
-
sponsorship
Hillary Clinton’s strategy when it comes to wooing superdelegates seems to be aggressive courtship followed by equally aggressive rejection. They’re your best friend until the moment they endorse Obama, at which point you disown them. Bill "Judas" Richardson learned this firsthand.
That could explain why Clinton took a thinly veiled shot at Al Gore at last night’s “Compassion Forum":
We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004. Large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand, or relate to, or respect their ways of life.
Honestly, if Clinton thought there was even a sliver of a chance that Al Gore would endorse her, she never would have said this. The dis isn’t quite explicit; she couches it as what other people think. But a little interlinear reading—“large segments of the electorate” represents the unassailable Will of the People, which is of course never wrong—makes it pretty clear that she’s endorsing the idea. Later in the evening, when Obama appeared on the program, he pointedly stood up for the former veep: “I thought Al Gore won.”
Meanwhile, the Scotsman (of Samantha Power fame) ran a thinly sourced piece yesterday reporting that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are planning to endorse Obama any day now in a double-fisted death blow to Clinton’s campaign. Over at DailyKos, diarist "davefromqueens" thinks Clinton lashed out at Gore yesterday as a pre-emptive strike against an impending endorsement. Of course Gore would endorse Obama, the logic goes, they’re both out-of touch elitist males.
It could be that Gore has truly decided not to endorse, and that Obama was just defending Gore in order to defend himself. But then why would Clinton go out of her way to 1) attack Gore, 2) explicitly link Gore and Kerry, who has endorsed Obama, and 3) implicitly link Obama to both of their losses? There’s no reason to publicly insult a potential ally unless he has already switched to the other side. Neutrality wouldn’t merit scorn.