![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hopefully, the interminable nomination season is finally over...
Last night, Denise and I watched the three speeches. My, what a contrast. McCain appeared to be speaking to a bare handful of people somewhere near New Orleans. He spoke before a hideous green backdrop, looking cadaverous and unhealthy against the color (someone on his staff needs to be fired for that choice). His occasional smiles looked frozen and false, his body lurched awkwardly as he turned from side-to-side, and his delivery was wooden. Especially at first, he appeared nervous and uncertain, obviously reading from the teleprompters, though later he seemed to get a bit more comfortable. But it was not an example of good speechmaking: rather, it was a rambling leftover stew of stock talking-points and applause lines.
Then Clinton spoke before a large gathering of loyalists in NYC -- and she gave a speech designed for those loyalists. To her credit, at the beginning of the speech she talked of reunifying the party and coming together, but then she proceeded to defuse such hopes. There was no congratulation of Obama for becoming the putative nominee of the party; instead, there was more touting of the states she's won and her claim to have garnered the majority of the popular vote, and a statement that she intended everyone's vote to count (which started a chant of "Denver! Denver!" among her audience.) In the end, she said that she was emphatically not ending her campaign tonight. Her speech was more a final plea to the superdelegates to reconsider. It was, however, a very well-delivered speech, and she showed that she can rouse her followers, and it demonstrated the depths of loyalty among them.
And finally there was Obama. Oh, my... His speech was given to some 17,000 people in a stadium in St. Paul, with (according to CNN) some several thousand people outside. He began with a statement that he would be the Democratic nominee. Then followed a sequence of praise for his fellow campaigners, and long paean to Clinton for her campaign -- he was far more gracious to her than she had been toward him, though I suppose he could afford to be. Then he began to disassemble McCain's speech, tearing it apart point by point. He delineated what "change" meant to him, and he did so in a rousing, inspiring, and fiery speech that had the crowd literally howling by the end. The man can speak -- in fact, I can think of very few better-delivered speeches. He makes people want to believe him. I can't wait to see Obama and McCain debate; the contrast in styles should be interesting...
So hopefully, it's over except for some final faint shouting. Hopefully, sometime in the next few days, Clinton will make the decision to give a concession speech rather than to pursue the incredibly divisive tactic of taking the ruling for Michigan and Florida to the credentials committee. I will say that I've heard some (few) Clinton supporters (and, for the record, both Denise and I voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary) say that they will vote for McCain rather than Obama... Given the incredible political distance between Clinton and McCain, I can only attribute that to blatant racism: Obama is far, far closer to Clinton's views than McCain's -- how could someone who wanted Clinton to be president vote for someone whose views (on abortion, on health care, on social issues, on foreign policy, on economics, on the conduct of war) are so antithetical to hers? I don't understand that at all unless race is the problem.
Now comes the important point: picking VP candidates. It's especially important, I would contend, for McCain, because given his health and age, there is a greater possibility that the veep might become the president, should McCain win the election.
So who do you think they're going to pick?
Last night, Denise and I watched the three speeches. My, what a contrast. McCain appeared to be speaking to a bare handful of people somewhere near New Orleans. He spoke before a hideous green backdrop, looking cadaverous and unhealthy against the color (someone on his staff needs to be fired for that choice). His occasional smiles looked frozen and false, his body lurched awkwardly as he turned from side-to-side, and his delivery was wooden. Especially at first, he appeared nervous and uncertain, obviously reading from the teleprompters, though later he seemed to get a bit more comfortable. But it was not an example of good speechmaking: rather, it was a rambling leftover stew of stock talking-points and applause lines.
Then Clinton spoke before a large gathering of loyalists in NYC -- and she gave a speech designed for those loyalists. To her credit, at the beginning of the speech she talked of reunifying the party and coming together, but then she proceeded to defuse such hopes. There was no congratulation of Obama for becoming the putative nominee of the party; instead, there was more touting of the states she's won and her claim to have garnered the majority of the popular vote, and a statement that she intended everyone's vote to count (which started a chant of "Denver! Denver!" among her audience.) In the end, she said that she was emphatically not ending her campaign tonight. Her speech was more a final plea to the superdelegates to reconsider. It was, however, a very well-delivered speech, and she showed that she can rouse her followers, and it demonstrated the depths of loyalty among them.
And finally there was Obama. Oh, my... His speech was given to some 17,000 people in a stadium in St. Paul, with (according to CNN) some several thousand people outside. He began with a statement that he would be the Democratic nominee. Then followed a sequence of praise for his fellow campaigners, and long paean to Clinton for her campaign -- he was far more gracious to her than she had been toward him, though I suppose he could afford to be. Then he began to disassemble McCain's speech, tearing it apart point by point. He delineated what "change" meant to him, and he did so in a rousing, inspiring, and fiery speech that had the crowd literally howling by the end. The man can speak -- in fact, I can think of very few better-delivered speeches. He makes people want to believe him. I can't wait to see Obama and McCain debate; the contrast in styles should be interesting...
So hopefully, it's over except for some final faint shouting. Hopefully, sometime in the next few days, Clinton will make the decision to give a concession speech rather than to pursue the incredibly divisive tactic of taking the ruling for Michigan and Florida to the credentials committee. I will say that I've heard some (few) Clinton supporters (and, for the record, both Denise and I voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary) say that they will vote for McCain rather than Obama... Given the incredible political distance between Clinton and McCain, I can only attribute that to blatant racism: Obama is far, far closer to Clinton's views than McCain's -- how could someone who wanted Clinton to be president vote for someone whose views (on abortion, on health care, on social issues, on foreign policy, on economics, on the conduct of war) are so antithetical to hers? I don't understand that at all unless race is the problem.
Now comes the important point: picking VP candidates. It's especially important, I would contend, for McCain, because given his health and age, there is a greater possibility that the veep might become the president, should McCain win the election.
So who do you think they're going to pick?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
The New York Times did a good breakdown of the question of whether Obama should pick Clinton as VP (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04assess.html?hp): Pros: it might heal the party, especially women, who wanted to see HER be the one to make history, "dream ticket," adds foreign policy credentials, etc. Cons (and I think this an important point): It'll undercut his message that he is the candicate for change. Plus, she clearly wants to be in charge.
I wonder: since she's seen as strong on foreign policy, wouldn't it be a much better idea to tap her as Secretary of State, picking someone else for the VP spot?
From:
no subject
That's a good thought, but if I were Clinton, I'd be thinking that I might do better/be more visible/be more powerful if I were to stay in the Senate and become Majority Leader.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
1. Secretary of Health and Human Services
2. Secretary of State
3. Lead Senator on the *insert name of committee* that approves Supreme Court Justices
4. Supreme Court Justice (this may be #1, actually)
From:
no subject