Along with her "ready to lead on Day One" mantra, Hillary Clinton's favored line of attack against Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Mondale's 1984 "Where's the beef?" attack on Gary Hart. In Clinton's version, Obama is little more than a shallow speechifier -- he believes that words are all you need to lead.
She made it explicit in a speech in Providence, Rhode Island on Sunday:
"I could stand up here and say 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open! The light will come down! Celestial choirs will be singing! And everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!' Maybe I've just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear!"
Last week it was: "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills."
And her chief strategist, Mark Penn, summed up the "just words" meme this way: "She is in the solutions business while Obama is in the promises business."
Now, I agree with Clinton that it's important to look at how each of the Democratic candidates uses words and how rhetoric fits into how they've run their respective campaigns. And if you do, you'll see that one candidate does believe that words are like a magic wand: you utter them and reality changes. But it's not Barack Obama -- it's Hillary Clinton.
Clinton's use of words is disturbingly reminiscent of the way the Bush administration has used words: just saying something is true is magically supposed to make it true. Call it Presto-change-o Politics.
The examples are so notorious they hardly bear repeating: "mission accomplished," "heckuva job," "last throes," the endless "turning the corner" in Iraq. They were all said with the arrogant belief that merely saying these words was all that was needed: reality would literally change to fit the rhetoric.
Now let's look at Hillary Clinton's rhetoric and what is says about the campaign she's run. It started with her absurd claim that her vote for the war was really a vote to send inspectors back in. The name of the bill? "The Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use Of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq." Saying it was about sending inspectors back in doesn't mean that it is true that it was about sending inspectors back in.
And then how about the endless spinning trying to diminish Obama victory after Obama victory? Here was Penn: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama." Mark Penn calling Virginia, Georgia, Missouri, and Colorado, among others, not "significant" does not make them insignificant.
Or Clinton's "35 years of experience." She has had a distinguished record of public service, but it's not in any way 35 years of government experience, unless you want to include her time at Yale Law school, or going door to door for George McGovern in Texas, or working at the Rose law firm in Arkansas as government experience. But her campaign seemed convinced that by repeating "35 years of experience" at every stop she would magically acquire that 35 years of experience.
But as the Bush administration has shown, believing your own words and not being able to see things as they are is not a good thing -- either for a country or a campaign. The New York Times described some Clinton aides as "baffled that a candidate who had been in the United States Senate for only three years and was a state lawmaker in Illinois before that was now outpacing a seasoned figure like Mrs. Clinton."
"Whether or not you think the more 'seasoned' candidate ought to win presidential elections, it seems to me that any campaign staffer who could be genuinely 'baffled' by experience not proving to be a winning issue is demonstrating a scary ignorance of how things work. Is her staff baffled that Joe Biden didn't win the nomination?"
Or how about the Clinton campaign's abracadabra rhetoric, designed to make the reality of what they agreed to about Florida and Michigan -- poof! -- go away. They even set up a website that attempts to pull a rabbit out of the electoral hat. The site list several "facts": "FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy." As Ezra Klein notes: "It's almost as if they thought putting it after... the word 'FACT,' would be like a Jedi mind trick."
Meanwhile, as the Clinton campaign was busy trying to use words to push the idea that losing is actually winning (you know, just like in Iraq), the Obama campaign was actually winning votes. To the extent that anything in a campaign is real, it doesn't get any more real than actual votes.
And, no, he wasn't winning them just because of his "words." He backed up his words with action: old-fashioned grassroots organizing. For instance, as was widely noted in the blogosphere, the Clinton campaign apparently found out only in February that the March 4th primary/caucus in Texas was sort of complicated:
"Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest."
As publius at Obsidian Wings says:
"While they were busy 'discovering' the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making PowerPoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose."
Repeat that kind of organizing throughout 23 "insignificant" states, and it turns out you get a pretty healthy delegate lead.
So let's look at how Obama uses words. Contrary to Clinton's charges, Obama never claims his words will somehow magically create change. Instead, he uses his words to ask the American people to demand change. Very little change for the better happens in Washington unless it is demanded by the people. It's instructive that, back in New Hampshire, Clinton discounted the work Martin Luther King did in creating the political atmosphere that allowed LBJ to push though the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Which is why Obama's constant invocation is "Yes we can" -- not "Yes I can." Obama uses words to persuade, to mobilize and to get people to imagine that reality can be changed. And based on how his campaign has been run, on the ground, in state after state, it's clear that he knows changing reality is not done through magic -- it's done through hard work.
It is Clinton who uses words to deny reality, and expects them to magically change it. Haven't we had enough of that over the last seven years?
Update: Dana Milbank offers up yet another example of reality denial -- and the belief that saying something is so will make it so -- on the part of the Clinton campaign. This one comes courtesy of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes who yesterday told a gathering of high-powered Washington journalists: "We're on our way to locking this nomination down." No word on whether the journalists -- including David Broder and Maureen Dowd -- responded with a collective spit take.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
I was stunned when it became apparent that you had chosen to sponsor a relatively untested legislator against a seasoned stateswoman to begin the long political road back from the ruinous condition of eight years of incipient fascism under the Bush administration.
I should think that anyone seeking change would be working day and night to replace 90% of the Republicans in the congress, which would be the only way to generate any kind of meaningful change. What the hell do you mean by "change"?
While on the subject of change I will tell you one thing that you may now know from what I guess to be your relatively limited experience in living in this country: It is in large part made up of people who come from people who have feelings of prejudice against people unlike themselves. While this bigotry is ebbing it still remains strong enough to keep a black person from being elected president for at least a couple more election cycles.
At the present all the media people who hate Hillary are doing is ensuring that we shall soon endure another Republican administration if Obama becomes the nominee.
Can't you see that?
all rhetoric STOLEN and no substance
say what you want but no thanks to the BS that is obama- makes me want to puke this rock star personna - this is NOT American Idol it is the presidency and I prefer my president to observe the National Anthem with HER hand over her heart. Muslims only pledge to Allah- hummm
Baffle them with BS (OBAMA) or dazzle them with brilliance (Hillary)
Hillary Clinton 2008
that she has been an elected official since what year?...
that she trusted george bush NOT to start a war...after she authorized it...
and learned so little she voted for Kyl-Lieberman amendment in 2007!!!....
this kind of "substance" escapes me....
she was in lock step with her husband's great decisions...
yet could not see his infidelity?....
i cannot trust my country to someone who is this "perceptive"...
i would rather "hope" that obama can change america with new ideas....
than to trust america to hillary"s "substance..
Thank you so much for writing this.
We may not have a lot of money, but together we are rich.
We may feel powerless and alone but together we are strong.
Our voices may be weak but together we are loud.
We may feel meek and humble but together we are proud.
"We are the change we've been waiting for." Barack Obama
Just finishing your half-baked thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk
Do you know what squelched this growth and what caused Al Gore to lose the 2000 election? It was the non-stop Republican and media smears against the Clintons that caused many chickenly Democrats like Obama's mentor Joe Lieberman to "turn away" and "distance themselves" from the Clinton administration.
Do you know what one of Obama's main themes is? That he won't be subject to such smears. Why not? Because he is going to compromise away all the values that Democrats stand for for working people that is at the root of these smears.
No thanks. GET REAL !!!
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!
But, to say that Sen. Obama's speech showed "courage" also shows some ignorance. The fact is that Obama's speech was given to constituents in THE MOST LIBERAL district in the state of Illinois. Real courage would have been to speak up in venues across the country and in CONSERVATIVE places where the "authorization" was considered the right thing to do.
The second point about his speech is that he ALSO SAID that he didn't know how he would vote if he had been a member of the U.S. Senate and had the information that they did.
Finally, Sen. Obama has not taken any particularly "courageous" stands on this war since his election to the U.S. Senate.
For example, he has voted against amendments to establish a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops, and against an amendment to urge President Bush to start bringing home troops at the end of 2006. He has also voted in favor of every funding/appropriations bill to continue the war, without ever taking any "courageous" stand against it, either through remarks on the floor or in his campaign speeches.
In addition, Sen. Obama has NOT VOTED on measures in the U.S. Senate that are significant in the governing of our country and how we proceed and have proceeded since that 2002 authorization vote. These measures include the resolution to implement the 911 Commission Recommendations, and the "No Confidence" vote against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (you might remember him as the Bush appointee who APPROVED the use of torture).
These are not "courageous" actions by a leader. They are acts of grandstanding that mark somebody as flagrantly obsessed with himself and his "mission"; they mark Sen. Obama as shameless in his calculated appeal to voters' ignorance, apathy and anger.
This is not courage. It is pandering dishonesty.
President has the power - pretty tough to make the changes you are asking for as 1 of 100 in the Senate - why are you not asking Obama the same - like why doesn't he have any meetings of the committee he was appointed to chair.
2001: left the govt with 3 years running surplus - no end in sight. That's the power of the Presidency.
Blame the American people for voting for Bush and believing the right wing smears against the Clintons. Blame Obama for trying to capitalize on those smears for his own benefit.
In the words of great American: "GET REAL !!!"
You can't take credit for the employment of your spouse!
WILL SOMEBODY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT SINCE IT SEEMS TO BE A MANTRA OF OBAMA'S THAT HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR. HELL, HE DIDN'T EVEN VOTE AS HE WASN'T EVEN A US SENATOR YET!!!!!!!!!!
MMB is to be congrartulated for coming right out with Obams's distortion of his involvement in anything having to do with the war and Hillary's actual involvement. It does not make sense that Hillary and her feckless staff have not made a major issue of Obama's misleading BS on his participation in anything remotely involved with the congressional actions leading up to the Bush invasion.
Not only that, but apparently Clinton didn't learn her lesson in Iraq. She then voted recklessly to give Bush a blank check for aggression against Iran with the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. It's like she has no sense of judgement whatsoever.
MMB apparently hasn't watched any of the debates or Obama's speeches, where the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote has been documented ad nauseum.
However THE FACT IS is that Obama, during his US Senate campaign, openly campaigned against the war. This wasn't "telling friends and family that he opposed the war" such as ARBOC seems to think. Rather, it was coming out in televised speeches against the war - a view that even his aides counseled him to avoid.
Everyone knows Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time. The rest of the millions of us out here who were appalled at the Iraq invasion and furious at our elected officials for not standing up for us weren't in the Senate either, but we believe our own good judgment at the time, like Obama's, still *counted*, even though we had no power to change anything. It's not irrelevant that Obama spoke out against the war even though he wasn't a Senator at the time. It's not irrelevant that *I* spoke out in my small way in my community even though I was not and will never be a Senator. We weren't listened to, but it *counts*. It mattered. We suffered because we voiced our opinions. It wasn't popular, and for some of us it got really fucked up, the stuff that happened to us because we wouldn't shut up.
So, don't tell me Obama's stance means nothing, and that it wasn't brave, because it meant something and it was brave. All of us who stood up, it meant something, and it was brave.
TELL US. SENATOR OBAMA, EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CHANGE--HOW--WHERE WOULD THE FUNDING COME FROM-
WHO WOULD PAY FOR IT. AND IN DOING SO, DO WHAT SUCCESSFUL CORPORATIONS DO--SET A TIMELINE AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND WHEN.
I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF LOFTY PHARASES. DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY CHANGE.
(P.S. - TURN YOUR CAPS LOCK OFF)
You can go to Obama's website where his policy proposals are laid out in detail. The information's there, or does Strong merely want to post nonsense?
The lack of intelligent discourse from supporters on both sides is absolutely and completely disheartening. Obviously the Obama supporters haven't really been listening to their own candidates words and the Clinton supporters haven't listened to their candidate either.
Both the candidates know that they are going to need each other to win the general. I just don't understand why their supporters don't get what they get.
Someone care to explain without ranting?
I am just as mystified as you are, but for an entirely different reason. If you care to hear my view on this as a whole, please scroll down and feel free..
Just look at McCain - he's doing just fine despite having the highest number of talk show wolves huffing and puffing at him, but they have yet to blow his house down because the majority of the people aren't really paying attention to blowhards like Limbaugh or Coulter. It's just a vocal and idiotic minority.
He's already a better campaign manager and based on the number of bills he has already authored will get done as much as the people around him will allow. He said himself "I cannot do it alone. If the American people really want change they need to get after their representatives." (paraphrased)
No matter who is elected they cannot do it alone. Those currently in power and the special interest groups are ruthless and will threaten or worse to get their way.
The support of the people behind the next president needs to be even greater than their influence. If a well intentioned elected official is being coerced behind the scenes it's time to make it public so the people can step forward and stand behind them.