Botched Rollout

    For married-with-children New York suburbanites in the 1970s and 80s, nothing spelled success like a Mercedes S-Class Sedan in the driveway.  After the big promotion, hot shot investment bankers, law firm partners, and ad agency execs headed over to Mercedes-Benz of Greenwich.  There they handed Hans a fat check and the keys to the family's now superfluous Gran Torino before cruising back to Scarsdale or Darien in 450 SEL splendor.

    There really was no comparable luxury four-door.  Jaguars were notoriously temperamental with poor manufacturing tolerances.  Like their British sibling, Rolls-Royces weren't as reliable as the German mark and were, moreover, too expensive and precious for most - even in the choicest suburbs.  Cadillac, please, that was your grandfather's car, if you picked the right grandfather.

    In truth, Mercedes made great cars and lots of money selling them at high prices.  But, by the mid-80s, Japanese auto giants Toyota and Nissan wanted into the lucrative American high-end market.  The Lexus LS 400 and and Infiniti Q45 debuted at the 1989 Detroit auto show.  Both cars were beautiful, well-made, and reasonably priced.  But only the Lexus really sold.  What went wrong?

    That August, Nissan rolled out the Q45 with one of the worst marketing campaigns ever.  Rather than feature the Infiniti's evolved stream-lined shape, Nissan's agency released a 30-second ad that for its entirety showed only a shimmering sea overlaid by hammy and confusing narration about a "well-balanced tool".  There was no shot of the Q45 in the original spot.  Disappointed retailers begged Nissan to include video of the car so potential buyers would see what they were missing.  By the time the automaker finally obliged months later, the Infiniti's sales potential may have been irrevocably damaged.

    Sunday, when Hillary Clinton announced to the surprise of nobody that she is running for President, she followed Nissan's strategy to a T.  Confusingly, she spoke to the populace via both Twitter and YouTube without linking at the former to the latter.  Her campaign manager John Podesta added to the cacophony by tweeting that "tackling climate change & clean energy" would be at the "[t]op of the agenda".  Worst of all, Clinton and Podesta don't put her on display until 90-seconds into their 2-minute "Getting Started" video.

    Instead they treat us to a comprehensive sample of Americans guaranteed to resonate with every imaginable Democratic demographic.  An apparently single mother of indeterminate ethnicity opens the video discussing her impending move to a neighborhood with better schools for her daughter.  An older gardener brags about her home-grown tomatoes as she discusses the changes that retirement will bring.

    A man tells us in Spanish that he and his brother are going to start a business.  Another single mom comes on screen to inform us she's going back to work.  Everybody is attractive, smiling, and happy as they relate their upcoming challenges.

    At 36-seconds into the video, we see our first heterosexual couple - two young African-Americans expecting a baby boy.  Cut to a female Asian college student looking for a part-time job.  Next up is a gay engaged couple.  We also see a mixed race couple who love their dog and then a white man who's taking over his family's business.  Finally, it's Hillary's turn.  She tells us that "everyday Americans need a champion" and she's "hoping to be that champion."

    Neither Clinton nor the "everyday" Americans in the spot tell us why they need a champion.  They all seem to be doing pretty well.  Like Nissan's ill-fated Infiniti spot, "Getting Started" contains no sales pitch.  Hillary might argue that she unlike the Q45 is visible.   But the truth is she's unseen and unheard for most of the ad and when she finally appears is not featured to her best advantage.

    How much more sensible it would have been to show Hillary throughout the spot.  Why not remind Americans of her many triumphs and unmatched experience?  Tie her to the relatively good memories America has of her husband's Presidency by showing photos of her and Bill celebrating his victories.  Intersperse footage of everyday Americans with video of Hillary in the US Senate and then conducting State Department business.

    It's easy to imagine some of the representative citizens describing how Democratic initiatives have made things better while others discuss the need for more pro-working and middle class legislation.  Finish the spot with Hillary's vision for a  more prosperous America that includes more and better-paying jobs, a cleaner greener energy independent land, and a more secure world.

    Some might argue that this bigger better "Getting Started" would need more than two minutes.  Fine, make it five or ten.  We're talking about a quest to become the most powerful person in the world.  If you need more time and money to sell us, spend them.  Jobs, energy and the environment, and national security should be the three-legged stool of Clinton's campaign.  In every speech and every campaign appearance, she should focus on these topics and link them together.

    For example, Clinton could explain her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline (I know she probably supports it but suspend your disbelief for a moment) as follows:

    You all know how important it is for America to build on President Obama's job creating legacy.  But numerous studies have shown that the Keystone XL pipeline will result in just a handful of permanent jobs.  By contrast, the renewable energy sector has been a job creating machine.  Moreover, the sooner we move away from fossil fuels the more secure we will be as a nation.

    But Hillary hasn't made such an argument or created a framework that naturally leads to such an argument or to any particular argument or policy.

    Clinton and Podesta probably think they were wise to include in "Getting Started" Americans of every race, color, ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual preference.  But what they really did is stress our differences from each other.  How we come from different backgrounds, have different sexual preferences, and are at different life stages.

    Republicans are adept at dividing the electorate by appealing to the worst instincts of people within various discrete groups.  The last thing Democrats should want is a candidate reminding us of the understandable but ultimately self-centered wishes of a single mom to send her child to good schools or the paucity of heterosexual white couples in Democratic ranks.

    Liberals and Democrats seem to do best in elections when the majority of the country is united behind a laudable goal.  Lincoln's re-election depended on his determination to rid the land of slavery.  FDR's first re-election came as the nation mobilized against the Great Depression, his third in the midst of World War II.

    Our country faces extremely serious challenges.  Poverty stalks the land.  An only somewhat degraded environment is the best we can hope to leave for our children.  The Middle East is as unstable as it has ever been.  President Obama recognizes these challenges and has taken them on with varying degrees of commitment and effectiveness.  Clinton is in a position to tell the electorate how she will build on Obama's successes and improve in areas where he has been lacking.  But she hasn't done this.

    Hillary Clinton remains to a large degree a cipher.  She hasn't told us why she's running for President.  She hasn't even started to make the case for us to vote for her.  She hasn't pilloried the opposition and therefore hasn't made the case against voting for one of them.  She's like a car that your local dealer wants to sell but the manufacturer hasn't given you any reason to buy.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    I don't consider it to be a botched rollout at all. I kinda like the idea of not coming out guns blazing. We all knew she was going to run. We all know who she is and what she's done. She's going to take it slow and let it build.

    She's been out of the public eye for awhile. I see this as her coming out and re-introducing herself. My feeling is that she wants us to get to know who she is now - post Senator, post Secretary of State, new grandmother. If she's a car, she's a classic. She doesn't mind if you come and see her a few times and get re-aquainted. There's no hurry to "close the deal."

    I like the idea that she didn't jump in and pillory the opposition and make a case for voting against them. To me, this election is about voting FOR someone. HER. Men have had centuries to mess up this country and have done an admirable job of it. It's time for a woman to come in and clean up the mess. If it can be cleaned up. And I don't see another more qualified woman out there ready to step in.

    I was never a Hillary fan. I can't really say I am an actual FAN now. But she's earned my respect. She worked hard as a senator and made a good name for herself. She sucked it up and answered the President's call when he asked her to be Secretary of State and did an admirable job. She's had some time to contemplate whether or not to run for President again. She doesn't NEED it. She could easily slide into a position beside Bill and do wonderful things.

    I believe she wants to make the country a better place for Charlotte to grow up in, and wants the same for the rest of our children and grandchildren. And I believe SHE believes she can do that. I'm ready to give her a shot at it, and I don't want or need a hard sell.

     


    I was never a Hillary fan. I can't really say I am an actual FAN now. But she's earned my respect. She worked hard as a senator and made a good name for herself. She sucked it up and answered the President's call when he asked her to be Secretary of State and did an admirable job. She's had some time to contemplate whether or not to run for President again. She doesn't NEED it. She could easily slide into a position beside Bill and do wonderful things.

    This captures my feelings almost exactly. Very well said.


    I could be wrong but I think the next presidential election is 17 months away. My guess is that this video is not the whole of Hillary's 17 month campaign. What's the rush? Many of the hypothetical republican candidates haven't even announced yet. And Webb is still playing coy as well as any other potential democratic candidates. We'll get plenty of chances to find out where she stands on the issues.

    I liked the video. It showed the diversity of the democratic party and how it welcomes people of different genders, sexual orientation, races, people from all walks of life. Inclusive and heart warming, it reflects my values. It was a surprisingly good way to begin her campaign. She must have hired a first rate ad person. First the appetizer, than the main course. Let's see what happens next.


    Compared to the messy roll out of Cruz and Rand Paul, HRC's was pretty close to perfect. Who paid attention to Rubio tonight except for a few Republican Cubans in Miami and my local Florida news?  

    I agree with Paul Krugman's editorial in the Times on Monday.  The parties are so far apart now that personalities of the candidates don't really matter in this election for president. The Republican is going to continue the scorched earth policies of the party and the Democratic President is going to protect the social programs, improve ACA and build the infrastructure.  

    I liked her video and watched it several times.  I got the message from it that is was all about the people who live here and our needs not so much about her.  That this election was our election that we mattered. 

    LOL...I have no idea what those cars you were comparing her to even look like. So you completely lost me.  


    WOW!

    1,263 words? My eyes are bleeding.

     Hey, at 10 cents per word you’d make over $125.

    Oh and just to let ya’ know… I’m a Grandfather and I own  a Tesla.

    ~OGD~

    .


    If this were a new car, I might agree with you.

    But this is Hillary Effin' Clinton - there's not a person in the country who hasn't heard of her, aside a few in the chronic ward. She won half the votes in the 2008 primaries.

    Hillary's gotten beat up enough over dealing with defense/war over all else - I can understand her takign a soft-sell tack to get back to the fuzzy feely stuff she does better.

    Build on Obama's successes? Jeezus, the Democrats lost big running on those. Here, let me tie an anchor around my neck - and one on the ankle just in case....

    As for beating up the opposition, there isn't really one yet, and why promote & do advertisement for the competition? let them squirm in silence.

    "The Middle East is as unstable as it has ever been." - you mean more than in the time of the prophet, or when Alexander was overruning it, or during the Persian-Roman wars, or under the influence of the Byzantine Empire, or during the caliphate when Russia was trying to bite off chunks, or during the 80's when the Russians had occupied Afghanistan to then threaten Pakistan while Iran & Iraq were engaged in a bloody 10 year war that killed off a generation?

    I still don't get where you're coming from - picking these things apart is too easy.


    Democrats lost by running away from Obama as noted in:

    The Daily Banter

    Time

    USNews

    HuffingtonPost

    Mashable

    Washington Post

    And

    The Root


    Jeezus, mention Obama in a post and rmrd guaranteed to show up. Yes, the Democrats ran on and were saddled with Obama's "successes" which were typically the glass-half-full type that Dems couldn't explain well even as they vote in lockstep. In 2010 and 2012 Obama didnt much bother to help. In the last election no one wanted him to. Whatever.

    Yes, proud to show up. Democrats ran away from Obama. It will be interesting to see how Hillary handles the situation. The differences between the Democrats and the GOP are so stark that there should be no problem sticking to many of Obama's programs. Gore failed to take full advantage of Clinton's record and lost. Just setting the record straight regarding running on Obama's record.

    Given that the candidates will be polar opposites in the primaries, it may not matter much what Hillary does regarding Obama in the white community. In the black community, she will probably need to appear to support Obama. The turnout will likely be high given the black community's fear of a Republican President. Disrespecting Obama may keep some black voters at home. Democrats cannot win without the black vote. Democrats generally get young and unwed women. White married women tend to go Republican. Hillary may be able to change those numbers by contrasting how Republicans view women with her stance on the issues. Elizabeth Warren may be able to encourage more women to come out in support of Hillary.

    The method used for her announcement will have zero impact on the Presidential election. It was fine.


    Democrats didn't run away from the President rmrd, if they did, how did he win a second term? You seem to be confusing some bloggers with those of us who are registered Democrats and tons of folks who are not registered anything who happily voted twice for this President.  


    To clarify, the Democrats that I was referring to were the elected and campaigning Democrats who ran away from Obama during the 2014 midterms. The supplied links address those politicians. Rank and file Democrats had no reason to rush out and support a "Democrat" like Alison Lundergan Grimes who could not say that she voted for Obama.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/13/politics/grimes-mcconnell-kentucky-senate-...


    You are still generalizing rm. Alison Lundegren Grimes didn't just run away from the President, she ran away from being a Democrat. Here is what I mean, when she was asked who she voted for in the 2012 election she played a stupid political game  and wouldn't answer the question, even though everyone knows she voted for the President. I mean, who does shit like that? Then she ran away from every principle the Democratic Party ever held, up to and including fracking, anti immigrant and anti-EPA. Only a very craven politician does shit like that, certainly Democrats where I live didn't run away from the President or his policies. I just think you are generalizing too much about Democrats. What is really happening is people like Grimes don't understand that people want to see you stand up for what you believe in, and what she did was cave into Republican propaganda about how and why people in the south vote. And what happened to her, she lost, because she ran her campaign like that, stupidly.  But by and large Democrats are not running from this President, they support him wholly. 


    The links I provided notes the Democrats running for office in 2014 who backed away from the President. I agree that Democrats need to stand for something. Hillary can appeal to blacks, Latinos, women, and Progressive Right. Every Republican candidate is part of the clown car. The job of individual Democrats is to get people out to vote. Republicans hate it when Democrats vote.
     


    Before endorsing Hillary Clinton, NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio told Chuck Todd Sunday: "I want to see a vision."  Did "Getting Started" help decipher Hillary's vision?


    I suspect Hillary is more popular in NYC than deBlasio. She may be relieved that he was not the first endorsement. 


    Like I should give a fuck? There are about 319 million other Americans besides Bill De Blasio. Wiinning New York is probably not high on Clinton's worry list. Maybe if Pope Francis or LeBron James dissed her I'd take notice, but probably not.

    Look, there are a million backseat drivers in presidential campaigns. It''s 19 months before the election. There are 50 different ways to position ad & marketing campaigns to address where they feel the candidate needs to be at this early stage - a gut sense as much as a science. You don't like her, as you've made quite clear, so any of your snippiness will be taken with a huge grain of salt.

    So if you really want to make a serious point, back it up with something more convincing than "New York Mayor takes time out from his own controversies to cause a national stir", a bit of "analysis" any Hillary hater could take just from glancing 2 seconds at the daily headlines and piling on. Could just as well say "self-absorbed Democratic white dude unimpressed with leading female candidate - decides to piss in punch bowl for fun and attention". Where's your value-add in all this?


    What's her vision?  Where does she stand on 1) TPP, 2) Keystone, 3) capital gains taxes, 4) the Iran deal?  She says America is "stacked in favor of those at the top".  How's she going to unstack it?  Marco Rubio has released a detailed proposal for revising the tax code.  It's a nightmare.  It will enrich the wealthy and empower the powerful.  But, he has a vision and a route to implement it.  Why doesn't Hillary?


    Frankly, Hal, I doubt I could care less what her positions are on any of those things. They might vary from mine slightly one way or the other, but not enough to make a difference in how I'll vote.

    I want the Dems to win the WH. Period. It is difficult for either party to do that following an 8 year stint by the same party, and probably even more difficult this time because the Dems fell down on the job in 2010 and 2014, and didn't have the President's back.

    I see Hillary as the best means to do that. My vote is hers to lose, but barring the miraculous addition of someone to the field that I cannot see at this point, I just don't see that happening. This is a must-win election for the Dems if we want to see what the President has accomplished thus far protected and improved upon. 

    I think it is about time the Dems put up a unified front for a change, and PRETEND that we are an organized political party, rather than a left-leaning version of the Repubs. We can win this, but we won't if a whole bunch of holier than thou purists stay home like spoiled children who didn't get everything they wanted. We RARELY get everything we want. But if we stay home, or don't unite, we are doomed to a Repub in the WH, and that's a thought that sends shivers up my spine, and not in a good way.


    Hal, sorry to bust your bubble on Rubio but he isn't even going to carry Florida. He has had that vision for 6 years. He didn't even dream it up himself. It was a blessing from a think tank.  


    I'm sure Hillary has positions on all of these things.

    And she and her advisors decided that going anal on wonky policy points 19 months before the election wasn't the strategy they needed at this moment.

    Hal Ginsberg is disappointed. Most Americans I'm sure don't know what Keystone is, and diving into the Iran agreement & Senate vote seems to be one of the stupidest things she could do to separate herself from the dozen Republican idiots stirring up this fiasco - isn't there enough idiot opinion on this in the blogosphere? Isn't stepping into this melee the worst opportunity to just create meaningless self-defeating soundbites? Will Iran nukes even be on the radar in November 2016 or January 2017? Very doubtful.

    So again, I don't understand your purpose except to find something to bitch about - you have a few petulant points you want dealt with now like Veruca Salt, but don't give any consideration to what Clinton needs to do to actually win an election - e.g. you pretend to be analyzing this from a campaign perspective but instead it's your policy wishlist.

    I'm also less than impressed with the "she hasn't told us" line, because there were points before you claimed this about yet they were easily found in her voting record and platforms at different points. So not only do you want your pet points addressed, you need them dropped in your lap again even though she's already expressed them.


    PP - perhaps you can set forth HRC's specific policy proposals and positions that you find appealing.  You might even convince me that there's more there there than I think.


    You're asking him to write the equivalent of a blog and many here just don't have the time for that. It takes more than reading and remembering, to write a quality blog takes research to make sure the details are correct. This site focuses on discussion and that requires both bloggers and commenters. You provide a service to this site by posting a blog for discussion. But you should expect vigorous debate here and mostly people expect bloggers to defend their blog. Or admit they're mistaken.

    I'm pretty left so no candidate will ever win the presidency that's as liberal as I am. Even if Warren were to run I'm not sure I'd vote for her. I just read her most recent book. Her life's focus has been economic issues and how the law deals with them. I like her views in that area. But I have no idea what her views are in any other area, especially foreign policy, and she doesn't seem to have spent much time studying or thinking about them. Foreign policy is important and I don't think I want someone learning on the job.

    I'm a liberal and Hillary is a left of center moderate, so is Obama. I've criticized Obama a lot and I'm sure I'll criticize Hillary a lot if she becomes president. But moderates always win in the democratic party, liberals can only try to push them as far left as possible. There's a few things most people seem to agree upon about Hillary. She's smart and she's a hard worker. She gets into the nitty gritty policy details and she does her homework. No matter how tedious the job she puts her nose to the grind stone and gets to work.  And she's a tenacious fighter for her policies. Those are qualities that I think are needed now.

    As Hillary released more policy details over the next year and a half I'm sure we'll be picking apart everything she says and does here. But for now this feel good video that embraces the diversity that is the democratic party is a good begining to that campaign.


    Did that back in 2008 aplenty - women's rights and family issues, rural poverty, even that healthcare stuff (including SCHIP) she took so much crap for. Probably other stuff, but people decided the hopey/changed dude would change Washington but of course didn't, so this time I'm not going to even worry about platform positions because most people can't be bothered with details and lies anyway and it's more about what I expect them to do in office, not what bullshit they have to say to get elected or followers will put on them to grow a new halo. Still waiting for this face-to-face sitdowns with no preconditions, among other fantasies. The best I can hope for Hillary is an Angie Merkel ability to tell them to fuck off in a classy way that they won't even know what hit them nor how to respond. Hill girl's not quite a master but she's getting there. The biggest thing I took from the URLs I told you to go read is how organized she is. Expect she'll be able to juggle more than the typical Washington 1-2 balls at a time. And as OK notes She's left of middle, tho in a note most people ignored, I pointed out she was the 11th most liberal member of the senate. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-th...

    God Gawd...

    Picking nits? Try harder.

    DeBlasio told Chuck Todd Sunday: "I want to see a vision."

    Maybe you, Chuck and Bill can try looking through the eyes of this child.

    ~OGD~

    ,

     


    I have to disagree, too, Hal.  I thought it was a brilliant move, designed, obviously, to show that Hillary can connect with all Americans.  You have to remember that this is the first roll-out.  It won't be the last.  She has to prove she's not the Ice Queen, and, as someone else said, it's not all about her.  Bringing her in last showed some real savvy to me.  I loved it.


    I won't spend much time on this, since I can tell you had a preconceived notion of the failure of Hillary's roll out to seeking the presidential nomination. 

    I do take issue with this particular statement:

    For example, Clinton could explain her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline (I know she probably supports it but suspend your disbelief for a moment) as follows:

    You all know how important it is for America to build on President Obama's job creating legacy.  But numerous studies have shown that the Keystone XL pipeline will result in just a handful of permanent jobs.  By contrast, the renewable energy sector has been a job creating machine.  Moreover, the sooner we move away from fossil fuels the more secure we will be as a nation.

    But you don't know what she believes at all, you just make an inference to her of course being pro-Keystone, even though you lack actual evidence. But you are also saying she has to lay out every position in her roll out, her statement about why she is seeking the nomination. Ultimately that is a strange position for you to take, since no one ever has done this, and it seems like you are requiring something different, some additional hoop to jump through, is that because she is a woman? Must she do something that the men seeking the nomination won't be required to do, since none of them have, hello Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, etc and so on? It's just an introduction to why she is running. It's a way for people to get to know her, since we already know a great deal about her policy positions.  

    I think you should also consider this; there was one major difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008 and that was her vote in favor of the Iraq war. Other than that there are no significant differences between Obama and Clinton, whether we are talking about environmental policy, health care policy, foreign policy, domestic policy, etc and so on.  

    And just a side note for you, she and the current President both support an energy policy that does include the development of fossil fuels  and fracking, along with comprehensive renewable policies. Is this good? It's political, how do you talk to people in states where their jobs rely on the fossil fuel industry?  I'm just saying Hal, she isn't different than the current President on any issue other than the one I mentioned. She is over and above any Republican who will run and seemingly a much better choice than a Jim Webb who does not believe in Climate Change, than Linc Chaffee who seems to have nothing to say except "No Hillary"


    You're right tmccarthy0 that I infer her position that's because she's never told us what it is.


    Hal, enjoyed reading this. But I think the objective right now is empathy, not policy wonking.

    My girl friend bought a slightly used car for a very good price at Hans' shop and never had a service date that was less than $1000. Then much later as I was driving around Texas in a pickup truck I was amused to hear Mercedes of Greenwich advertising on Bloomberg/Sirius---how could that be cost effective? In any case my conclusion, and car analogy, is that Mercedes of Greenwich is a smart operation and I grant the same to the Clinton team.


    Glad you liked it Oxy Mora.  Here's what sometime Hillary supporter Ruth Marcus (far from my favorite) had to say:

    The more I watch Hillary Clinton's announcement video, the less I like it. . . the video was relentlessly, insultingly vapid — a Verizon commercial without the substance. . . . Adding insult to vacuousness was the demographic box-checking nature of the video, however beautifully filmed.


    A guess: the video was not made for Harvard Law School graduate Ruth Marcus.

    60 million vapid Real American voters voted to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Hillary recognizes that reality as she runs against the plutocrat funded machine that exploits the hate, fears and anxieties of the flag waving yokels, snake handlers, dimwits and bigots of America to get them out at election time.

    To vote against someone or something that the GOP rails against, deems itself unaccountable for, and strives to ensure will never be resolved, so it can be used over and over again.


    I get your criticisms, Hal, but I think you have the wrong expectations for Clinton's opening ad. With the election still a year and a half away, guaranteed media attention, and no primary opponents in site, Clinton does not have to roar out of the gate. She just has to avoid tripping, for to trip would invite people to question her inevitability. Consequently, this is a "safe" ad--sunny, vague, and inoffensive. There will come a time when Clinton can no longer play it safe, but it's still far off.

    I was struck by something else--the ad's optimism. The people it features are not poor, jobless, and buried in debt. They are finding a job at last, moving to a better neighborhood, starting a new business, getting married. This is a morning-in-America ad. If indicative of the larger strategy, it could mean that Clinton will try to pull a Reagan. Depending on her opponent, that could be the perfect antidote to the Tea Party's gloomy prognostications, and with the economy improving, the timing could be right.


    Omg, it's totally morning in America. Check it.


    It makes sense to do that because in 1984 the country was swinging to the right,  Now there is a new generational swing going on to the left. The real people that she featured are the new left. 


    I was struck by something else--the ad's optimism.

    Which I would say is also very much not "running away from Obama", as some have alleged.


    Not sure who alleged that - the contention was that wrapping herself in Obama wasn't the smartest move.

    It wasn't "running away" - it was "not wearing him around her neck"


    Excellent observation, Michael, and the Reagan comparison is spot-on. For years pundits and politicos have lamented the lack of that sense of optimism, that rousing feeling that the best is yet to come. Can she convince us that she's the "champion" needed to get us there? We'll certainly see in the months ahead, but it's a good first step.


     In a post about DeBlasio's vision comment...

    I pointed out to Hal above up-thread...

    Is there some kind of problem trying to view a vision of life through the eyes of this child?

    Of course the pundits and politicos have lamented the lack of that sense of optimism.

    If it doesn't bleed... It doesn't lead.

    ~OGD~

    .


    The more I think about this country from the standpoint of what I think is best for my granddaughters, the more excited I get about Hillary's campaign. I showed Hillary's picture to my eldest (she's 10) and told her that she is running to be President, and I actually choked up. It caught me by surprise.


    What's truly incredible, Still, is that most girls her age don't see a woman president as anything unusual - it just hasn't happened yet. And that's even more beautiful than the history it will make ... because they already see the future.


    I also get tears in my eyes thinking about her being president. I know where her heart is and it has been in the same place since I first heard her speak.  This was in the 1970's at college during a women's lecture week end. She talked about children that were caught up in the foster care system and the rights that were being denied these kids. Republicans talk about family values but it is through the theme of bigotry and homophobic fears.  HRC will put families first and invest in them. We all know she is a tough fighter and will stand up to the crazies in congress. 


    Hillary's early work for children...

    In 1970, she secured a grant and first went to work for the Children's Defense Fund. The following summer, she first came to Washington, D.C. working on Senator Walter Mondale's (Minnesota Democrat) subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education. In the summer of 1972, she worked in the western states for the Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern's campaign. During her second year in law school, Hillary Clinton volunteered at Yale's Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development, as well as New Haven Hospital, where she took on cases of child abuse and the city Legal Services, providing free legal service to the poor.

    From : Hillary's Bio - The National First Ladies' Library

     

    And...  In our lives the children in Special Education have been a very high priority in our home. My wife just retired from serving children in Special Ed over the past 31 years. And we both were solidly behind Hillary's support of these educational programs. We're still active.

    Here's a quote from the 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate (my highlights).

    • "Let's do what we've said we were going to do. How about funding special education, which we never have to the extent that we promised, putting a lot of burdens on states and local districts? How about fully funding whatever we ask the local communities to do? So I want to have a very holistic view of this, because if you go into a classroom today, it doesn't look like the 21st century in most instances, it looks very familiar to me, who was last in a classroom decades ago."

    Source:

    2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate , Dec 13, 2007

    http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/13/se.01.html

    ~OGD~

    .


    Thanks, I have followed her career ever since. This was before I knew about Bill and I always felt she was the star of that team. There is so much good will for her internationally. 

    I am optimistic because she has built a large amount of respect all over the country. I know Republicans that plan to vote for her if she makes it to the general election. The Clintons are still well liked in the south. 


    Latest Comments