From graduate school I remember a simple framework that we learned to help categorize voters into two camps. First, there are people who vote for someone because they represent their position on a key issue like abortion, national defense, immigration or taxes. For that type of voter, their elected official is a "delegate" and the expectation is that the elected official votes their way on these key issues, or the voter will abandon them. Second, there are people who while not ignoring key issues or policy positions, are looking for someone they believe understands their situation, shares their values, and on balance, will act in a way that is in their best interest. These types of voters give their elected officials more latitude, seeing them as a "trustee" who will make the right choices on behalf of them. If you apply this simple categorization to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you can begin to see where the candidates' strengths are, as well as their weaknesses.
Barack Obama's campaign is perhaps the best at melding the two categories. He is solidly in line with the delegate voters within the Democratic Party (e.g., out of Iraq quickly, pro-choice, reverse tax cuts, climate change legislation, etc.) and unlike John McCain, does not offend these voters by straying from core Party orthodoxies. At the same time, for many Obama supporters and in particular independents, he is a trustee -- someone they trust will find a way to deliver transformational change and progress on fundamental issues in America, like race. How has he elevated himself to this trustee status? Through personal stories. What Obama understands that many experienced leaders (in the public, private or non-profit sectors) do not is that stories and narratives matter. As Obama himself has said, position papers, resumes and PowerPoint presentations do not inspire people or help you to gain their trust; stories, on the other hand, provide an opportunity to move and touch people, and to demonstrate the kind of values and strengths voters believe are needed in a leader and more importantly, which they believe will direct their leader's behavior in unforeseen and difficult situations. What's more is that Obama's story to the trustee voter aligns with his position to the delegate voter. That is, his policy positions and worldviews seem to result not from political expediency or polls but rather are the authentic outcome of beliefs and values shaped throughout his life and demonstrated in his stories. And this is where Hillary Clinton has failed so shockingly.
What, after all is Hillary Clinton's story? Rather than crafting a compelling narrative that explains her desire to serve and her position on issues, Clinton has seemingly done just the opposite by continuing to avoid sharing her story in a meaningful way. This has allowed the negative narratives -- the ambitious, enabling, heartless woman who will do anything for power -- to dominate and as such, her motivates are almost always questioned, her positions seen as the product of convenience rather than principle and personal moments interpreted as calculating. Perhaps even more awkward is that Clinton has been trying to promote narratives of herself like the seasoned leader with the experience to handle the 3:00 a.m. call that are not grounded in credible personal stories and experiences. Even if we grant Clinton the experience she claims (e.g., assume the Bosnia story was true), the stories she has chosen do not reflect personal experiences, struggles and triumphs, that voters can relate to and might share, and thus they have limited ability to move voters and connect them to her. Bill Clinton understood the power of the narrative to build connection and trust, and thus, "the man from Hope" and "I feel your pain". Hillary Clinton should have known better.
It is, however, not too late for Clinton. The drumbeat for her to abandon her campaign offers Clinton a terrific opportunity to deliver her version of Obama's Reverend Wright speech. Clinton should give a formal address grounded in deeply personal stories -- not the stories of others (e.g., the old woman who cannot buy food and medicine) as she is want to do -- that addresses the difficult issues that raise doubt about her motivations (e.g., why she has stood by Bill) and reveals to voters why she continues her fight. Just saying she is a fighter is not enough; through her stories and personal narrative, she needs to demonstrate how she became a fighter, how those things seen as weaknesses are in fact strengths, and most importantly, why the country needs her to fight for them. Obama's Wright speech did this masterfully by acknowledging the issues, addressing them through personal stories that both revealed more about him and resonated with voters' own experiences (both black and white) and then offering his candidacy as the only solution. This may not be Clinton's strength like it is Obama's, but leadership demands it and her candidacy requires it.
The Clintons have a legacy of halftruths, mistruths, convoluted distortions and flat out lies to overcome that leaves the majority of Americans unwilling to accept anything that Sen. Clinton says.
Here's Clinton's Story: Fat Lady Sings Yet Another Song --
March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
EXCERPT
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee"s public files. So what did Hillary do?
"Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public," Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding " as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm
Would Senator Clinton have bowled? No, because she would is too fearful of being portrayed negatively. Senator Obama, I imagine, thought that getting to know the local people better and experience what they do first hand will trump any potential embarrassment.
Someone who turns weaknesses into strengths must also be able to take responsibility for their actions and not make any excuses. Senator Clinton could have mitigated her Bosnia gaffe by immediately saying, "I was wrong. I forgot. I made a mistake. I'm sorry." Memory lapse is a weakness with which we can all identify. However, like Fonzie on "Happy Days," she can't admit that she is wrong. Instead, she chose to hide behind "misspeaking" and "sleep deprivation." In fearing to show her "weakness," she opened the floodgates to questions about her credibility and veracity.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that Senator Clinton will never be able to deliver the "Reverend Wright speech" until she frees herself from the political calculator in her head.
What evolues is the story of who the candiate is and why we would vote for one over the other. Each candidate has the ability to shine and the ability to fail. It's their own personal words, stories, body language, messages they deliver - those are the things we can't change nor ignore. In the end, the accumulation of how each candidate handled each situation, determines our answer. This is a job interview, not a popularity contest. This should never be about blacks, whites, male, female, etc.
In the end, I see it clearly. Maybe hillary didn't start out telling her life story but along the way she gave all of us a preview of how she chooses to lead america. Experience (or the perception of experience) isn't everything. Everyone is a fighter in their own way. But a good fighter is nothing without judgement. Respect is something we earn - she failed miserably.
She did start out knowing that her negatives were low. She overlooked those numbers - not important to her - should have been very important - and in the end, she's at an all time low.
It's a sad story - but she holds
Her quest for power simply supersedes any attempt to tell the truth.
All one has to do is go to Huffpost, to dailykos and read the Rove descriptors of Hillary Clinton. Turn on the overtly sexist MSNBC and hear the all male pundits snicker about Hillary 's voice, ankles, her pants' suits. How obvious.
The media boys constantly defend each other with "well the Clintons aren't really gracious to the media" and perhaps that's why it "seems" there is a negative spin. It was the media who was mocking Hillary long before the Monica thing happened. It was the media who snickered with McCain when he mocked adolescent Chelsea when he called her a product of Hillary and Janet Reno. It was the same media, who gave W a pass for years, who refused to investigate anything about their "beer drinking" buddy, that was relentless in their pursuit of Whitewater and anything else that could dirty the "trailer trash" some of you thought never had a right to the WH.
I am so sick of this site and other so called liberal blogs and the Rovian mentality. You guys want a pass and want everyone to blame the Clintons. (Most) Women get it. Most men do not. That is obvious/
Had you actually read the post you would understand that you are actually in agreement with Mr Garg.
The only difference is that you want to blame the media as opposed to having Senator Clinton provide an alternative narrative.
Even Kerry, who voted for the Iraq War, stated that no one read the NIE report. They all were briefed on it.
as far as the rest of your post, it is straight out of the republican attack playbook from the 1990's. Way to GO!!
The right question is, "Why are the big political guns not calling for Obama to quit, to stop, to get out of the race?" The fact of the matter is, it is the big-time political Obama supporters, NOT THE VOTERS, who are shouting over and over for Clinton to quit.
The voters know this and especially the Senator Clinton supporters know this. So why does it surprise you to learn that about 28% of the Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain if Obama is handed the nomination without seating and counting the FL and MI votes?
Obama is not "winning", he is "ahead" at this point.
Obama cannot win without Superdelegates.
Clinton cannot win without Superdelegates
Finally, according to the "rules", the Superdelegates, and even the delegates can change and endorse the other candidate at any time.
Health care? Those in the know say she had much less to do with it than she claims. The Ireland peace process? A minor player... open borders? Happened before she got there... and the Bosnia debacle puts it over the top.
So it may have been an effective strategy if she had done what you're suggesting a few months ago, instead of the kitchen sink strategy, but now it's too late... and she's just not believable any more.
She started off having 30 percent of the Democratic primary voters committed to her because of her gender. These voters judge her the way they would their own mother or their own daughter, and give her every benefit of the doubt. And once Edwards and the other Dems dropped out and Obama was her only remaining opponent, Hillary was able to add more voters from the remaining racists in the Democratic Party.
Hillary has shown no ability to draw voters who are not committed to her because of her gender or her race. That does not mean she is not bright or even that she is not a good human being. Few people are natural politicians, as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are. And it is about time she figured out she is one of the many like the rest of us, not one of those few.
That's why her motto is "yes she can" and his motto is "yes we can".
That's why Obama says in his speeches he is not a perfect candidate but with our help change can happen. And she says she has only made one mistake in 12 years, her Bosnia one.
That's why she unapologetic takes more special interest PAC money than any politician in history and when asked she says she will keep on taking it because special interests are Americans to. Yet Obama refuses PAC money and has nearly 2 million small donors whose average contribution is less than 200$.
people don't need a politician who owes a ton of favors to special interest or one who claims 35 years of experience while she was union busting and raising barriers for women at Wal-mart.
More than any other Democrat, Hillary is just as accountable for the War as George Bush. She not only voted for it, she legitimized Bush's entire rationale for going to war, which no other Democrat did.
Combine that with the liability Bill presents in terms of the potential for another campaign or administration crippling sex scandal, and policies are beside the point.