Clinton Finally Announces Her Message: Banality and Incoherence.
The much-ballyhooed announcement video offers little hint [of who, policy-wise, Clinton is]. For the first half-minute or so, you would be excused for thinking that it was some sort of detergent commercial, intended to air during the Olympics. Gay weddings! Babies being born! Moms going back to work! Clorox, this commercial seems to say, has finally gotten with the program.
But then the ad continues. Clearly, this is some sort of anthology drama, around the theme of getting ready for things. Possibly the next installment of “Love Actually.”
Call it “Hillary, Actually.” Women getting ready to start businesses! Brothers getting ready to start businesses! Moms getting ready to go back to work! Families getting ready for the addition of new members! Gay weddings! Tomatoes! Legendary tomatoes! School plays! “I’m gonna be in the school play and I’m gonna be in a fish costume,” says a child. This is actually a thing that happens in the commercial. Actually. “The little tiny fishes…” the child sings. It doesn’t stop there. Cats! Dogs! Hillary actually is all around us. All it was missing was an aging rocker, hoping for one last hit.
But instead, we have Hillary. “I’m getting ready to do something, too,” Hillary says at the end of the video, one-upping all these people with their businesses and prize tomato gardens. “I’m getting ready to run for president.” (That fish costume doesn’t sound so impressive now, does it?)
“Because it’s YOUR time and I hope you’ll join me on this journey,” she amends quickly, but not quickly enough.
— ‘Hillary, Actually’–Hillary Clinton actually is all around us, Alexandra Petri, Washington Post online, late yesterday afternoon
My late father (no less a politics junkie and frustrated liberal than is his daughter) and I had a longstanding joke dating back to the 1988 Michael Dukakis campaign. The ad, a short one, 30 seconds, probably, shown late in the general-election campaign, began with the camera showing … something; I no longer recall what the video showed, but I think maybe it was just Dukakis speaking into the camera, and with Dukakis saying … something. I don’t recall the specifics of what his first sentences were, other than that they were unspecific. But the last three sentences were, if I remember right, “That’s not a Democratic concern. That’s not a Republican concern. That’s a father’s concern.”
Actually, I do remember, precisely, that final sentence, since it served as the punchline of our standing joke. Which had to do with the fact that the ad gave no clue to what the “that” was. The first time or two that you saw the ad, you thought you simply had missed what the “that” was. But you had not missed what the “that” was. Dukakis had missed including it.
I began to think about that ad again around the time last fall when most of the political reports about Clinton said she planned to run as a grandmother. (“That’s a grandmother’s concern.”)
Then came news, early this year, that she was also going to get into substantive economic policy that would go beyond verifying yet again (and again and again) her support for an increase in the federal minimum wage, paid sick leave and vacation time, and affordable childcare and guaranteed preschool. She was, it was reported, speaking at length to economists. Did this mean that she might discuss Keynesian vs. Laffer fiscal policy, and the actual effects of each? Hope springs eternal. So, maybe?
But hope began to fade (it wasn’t eternal, after all) a few weeks ago, when every three or four days, or so it seemed, there was another report about another one or two or three new communications hires—um, should she decide to run. The solely political hires seemed fine, if very numerous. But then there were the ones from Madison Avenue, including the one most recently from Madison Avenue and, before that, Michelle Obama’s staff. (She’s credited as the one who suggested that Michelle do a dance on some daytime TV show, or something, which apparently was a big success in the effort to “humanize” Michelle for the then-upcoming reelection campaign.)
On the heels of those reports came the ones, repeated again and again in the past two weeks, that Clinton would forego, at least for the first few months, the traditional large rallies and speeches to large audiences, and would instead speak with people in small, somewhat intimate settings. I thought that sounded great; I detest those idolatry political rallies and the like, and Clinton, it was clear from her 2007-08 effort, was particularly bad at this type of thing. And I assumed that Clinton would use these small-setting meetings, in part, to discuss specifics of economic policy. After all, this campaign, high-level people inside it made a point of indicating, will not be focused on her—her political ambitions; her desire to be the first female president—and will instead be focused on economic policy addressing middle-class fears and aspirations.
And even when the campaign insiders said she planned to meet with ordinary people in order just to listen to them and learn what’s on their minds, I figured that that didn’t preclude something more than soundbites and clichés from her during these discussions. Her answers could involve, maybe, three or four sentences of substantive background and explanations. Theoretically, anyway. Her husband did that, at times. Maybe she could, too. So I held out hope for a campaign of genuine substance about economic policy.
And we all were assured, and assured and assured, that her long-awaited announcement wouldn’t be like her announcement last time, which was, “I’m in. And I’m in to win.” Weren’t we?
But instead, it turned out, it would be: “I’m in. And I’ll use a Super Bowl-style commercial that, for its first three-fourths, gives no hint of tie-in to the product being pushed, and then closes with a few words or maybe two sentences generically identifying the brand, the product, the slogan, and, finally, the intended message of the very long lead-in.”
Which, in this case, is that Clinton, like other Americans who are preparing for something new and major in their lives, is getting ready to do something, too! In her case, it’s running for president.
But something had to be said about, y’know, policy. Or something hinting at it. And so, in perfect Super Bowl-ad style, she said, “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” And, in perfect Super Bowl-ad style, that was it for a tie-in to, well, anything.
Okay, well, almost it for a tie-in. She did add, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion so you can do more than just get by.” So she’s “hitting the road to earn your vote, because it’s your time.” And “I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”
Which I will, of course. Bush, Walker, Rubio and Paul don’t appeal to me, partly because Laffer doesn’t. And on my way home from the voting booth I’ll stop in at a grocery store and buy a bottle of Clorox. Or maybe buy that Chrysler advertised during the Super Bowl. It might be my time for one of those, anyway. I mean, who knows.
—-
Appended to add the following exchange between reader CaffeinatedOne and me in the Ccomments thread:
CaffeinatedOne
April 13, 2015 3:59 pm
Yes, Presidents are expected to do substantive policy things, but campaigns are a lot more than that. All this was intended to be was a feel-good kickoff announcement and some broad framing of themes. Given where we are in the campaign cycle, doing much more than that hardly necessary and likely counterproductive,
Anything solid that she proposes at this point just becomes a target for the republicans in the clown car, and the media and doesn’t really help her much. Once republicans have a nominee and (somewhat) coherent set of policy proposals, then we’ll (hopefully) get to the meat of things.
Yes, it’s cruddy that campaigns aren’t policy focused affairs, but tactically it makes a lot of sense for her to focus on framing and positioning at this stage and wait for an opponent to form up.
Beverly Mann
April 13, 2015 6:19 pm
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” And, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion so you can do more than just get by.” And she’s “hitting the road to earn your vote, because it’s your time.” And “I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”
There was a complete disconnect between “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top” and “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion so you can do more than just get by,” and the stories of the people in that video. There was no one in the video, best as I recall, who sounded like he or she was just getting by. The child who sang the fish song, maybe?
They all were upbeat and excited about the upcoming big change or big event in their lives. Just like Hillary’s all excited about running for president. But the things that these people were excited about are basic parts of their lives. Expecting a new baby. Finishing college. Moving. Major home repairs to that young couple’s new home. A woman looking forward to her imminent retirement and thinking of what she will become involved in then. None of these people looked as though they were just getting by, or, if they were, expected that it would last much longer. The deck may still be stacked in favor of those at the top, but it wasn’t hurting the people appearing in that video. It may be their time, but they didn’t seem to need a champion.
This was a deeply incoherent message, surely the result of a compromise between the Madison Avenue messaging folks and the political people who wrote a coherent passionate message for her give and then saw three lines of it appended disjointedly to the Super Bowl ad.
Clinton doesn’t really care very much about policy, other than the traditional women’s movement policy issues. She wants this particular glass ceiling broken and she wants to be the one to do it. That’s why she flits from one persona to another, convinced that what matters for her electability is her persona and nothing more. I was surprised at how really bad that video was, in my opinion. I’m pretty sure it was really bad.
Not fatal, of course. She will, after all, be running against a Republican. But more than a day after I watched that thing, I still can’t shake a feeling of incredulity.
Added 4/13 at 6:37 p.m.
Did you really expect for her to kick off her campaign by sitting down and reading an economic policy document? Maybe she should have lectured us about the history of inequality, it’s root drivers, and her 50 point plan to address it?
It’s a feel-good campaign kickoff commercial, and that’s all that it needs to be at this stage. It frames (very) broad themes that she’s interested in, but that’s about all. We have about a year and a half of campaign ahead of us (whee), where she should be laying out more detailed policy proposals.
Of course, since Democrats are really unlikely to win the house anytime soon given gerrymandering, any policies that require congress to act are likely DOA regardless, but that’s another issue.
I’m waiting to see Hillary in a fish costume. That would be something at least.
Did I really expect for her to kick off her campaign by sitting down and reading an economic policy document? No, CaffinatedOne. No.
Did you really think that’s what I was suggesting that she should have done? I mean, really?
I didn’t actually expect anything in particular in her kickoff, other than some semblance of coherence. Some message other than that some people are starting or looking forward to new milestones and the beginning of a personal dream or (as with the kid) something exciting, which makes her just like them! And them just like her!
Something at least slightly substantive, however broad (as necessitated by the format)s Since that’s what presidents are expected to do–substantive policy things.
Oh, brother.
Sounds appropriate, Sandwichman. Not sure she can swim, though.
Yes, Presidents are expected to do substantive policy things, but campaigns are a lot more than that. All this was intended to be was a feel-good kickoff announcement and some broad framing of themes. Given where we are in the campaign cycle, doing much more than that hardly necessary and likely counterproductive,
Anything solid that she proposes at this point just becomes a target for the republicans in the clown car, and the media and doesn’t really help her much. Once republicans have a nominee and (somewhat) coherent set of policy proposals, then we’ll (hopefully) get to the meat of things.
Yes, it’s cruddy that campaigns aren’t policy focused affairs, but tactically it makes a lot of sense for her to focus on framing and positioning at this stage and wait for an opponent to form up.
C1, why capitalize one Party and not the other party?
Hillary’s video was designed to offend nobody and to be quickly forgotten by everybody. As soon as she becomes truly substantive about anything she will begin to fracture what she hopes is her coalition.
And right on que, Andy Borowitz: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/new-hillary-clinton-ad-features-just-kittens?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(14)&cndid=24399327&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(14)&CNDID=24399327&spMailingID=7658778&spUserID=MjczNzc0OTA1NzUS1&spJobID=661197393&spReportId=NjYxMTk3MzkzS0
Dem party seems at best to want to hang on to the paltry past:
Obamacare that leaves tens of millions out — too expensive for too many brought in;
General support for some minimum wage hike (min now several dollars below 1968 — double per capita income later!)
Hang on to SS, Medicare, Medicaid;
Hang on to Glass-Stengel;
Nothing to do about the defining economic — and political — pathology of de-unionization.
Nothing to wake voters out of their deep sleep and rouse them to the polls.
How about selling:
$15 an hour min wage (45% of workforce gets raise — only 3.5% shift of GDP);
Push some version of single-payer — or perhaps just the intention to work out or at least work on some version of single-payer like Obama worked on Ocare (squeezed most out of political lemon: told industries they are either at the table or the meal; promised more business to pay for lower costs);
Face up to core task of re-unionization in concrete way — how about sicking RICO on union busters: arguable; and while the arguments go on in court, hopefully, the busters will run for the hills, not wanting to pile up anymore liabilities while waiting for rulings to come down, while we organize the country out from under them, too late for them whatever the rulings. Just one idea. Where are the others? Must do in any case: centralized bargaining (one labor contract with different similar firms) the only way to end the race-to-the-bottom, unionized or not.
Need a (non-paltry) party that can actually get our lives back.
Warren seems out. Martin O’Malley knocks out Hil?
Well O’Malley knocking Hillary out is Beverly’s big dream but I do not see it happening. I did not watch the ad but I imagine it was a sop to every interest group that Hillary hopes to cobble together to win the general election and to keep Democratic contenders on the sidelines. I am sure what Obama did to her with young people and African Americans still stings and at this point she just wants to keep O’Malley and Webb and anyone else on the sidelines. I doubt if she cares about Sanders and she could not eat his lunch and get elected in the general anymore than he could if he somehow got the Democratic nomination. For my part I was delighted that she at least paid lip service to inequality and the middle class. Both seem to be the current third rail of GOP politics and if she avoids too many unforced errors she should be able to win the general. While the GOP controlled House will keep her from accomplishing much at least she would have a veto pen and perhaps the GOP will split off the Teabaggers by 2024 when Texas will be a “blue state” unless the GOP makes peace with Hispanics. It is a holding pattern for the liberal viewpoint these days, but once the black guy is no longer in the White House I imagine some of the old white men and women will start thinking about which party will help their pocket books the most.
She’s stuck between a rock and a hard place. If she gets too specific about her policy goals – especially regarding foreign policy – she’ll depress the Democratic base ( and , as a result , their turnout ). On the other hand , she may capture a load of ” Clinton Republicans” , given the apparent lack of any Repub candidate with broad appeal.
In fact , I can suggest a campaign ad to help her get those crossover votes : She and John McCain singing a duet – to the tunes of the Beach Boys – of ” Bomb , Bomb Iran “.
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” And, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion so you can do more than just get by.” And she’s “hitting the road to earn your vote, because it’s your time.” And “I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”
There was a complete disconnect between “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top” and “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion so you can do more than just get by,” and the stories of the people in that video. There was no one in the video, best as I recall, who sounded like he or she was just getting by. The child who sang the fish song, maybe?
They all were upbeat and excited about the upcoming big change or big event in their lives. Just like Hillary’s all excited about running for president. But the things that these people were excited about are basic parts of their lives. Expecting a new baby. Finishing college. Moving. Major home repairs to that young couple’s new home. A woman looking forward to her imminent retirement and thinking of what she will become involved in then. None of these people looked as though they were just getting by, or, if they were, expected that it would last much longer. The deck may still be stacked in favor of those at the top, but it wasn’t hurting the people appearing in that video. It may be their time, but they didn’t seem to need a champion.
This was a deeply incoherent message, surely the result of a compromise between the Madison Avenue messaging folks and the political people who wrote a coherent passionate message for her give and then saw three lines of it appended disjointedly to the Super Bowl ad.
Clinton doesn’t really care very much about policy, other than the traditional women’s movement policy issues. She wants thus particular glass ceiling broken and she wants to be the one to do it. That’s why she flits from one persona to another, convinced that what matters for her electability is her persona and nothing more. I was surprised at how really bad that video was, in my opinion. I’m pretty sure it was really bad.
Not fatal, of course. She will, after all, be running against a Republican. But more than a day after I watched that thing, I still can’t shake a feeling of incredulity.
Roger, if the video was designed to offend nobody, the design was faulty. It offended someone, as I can attest.
To coin a phrase, the ad was classic morning in America and that worked. Reagan’s team were smart enough to position themselves against the gloom and doom of Carter (there were some tough times). Clinton is doing the same.
Eli, are you saying that Clinton’s point was that things are finally going well economically, and that returning the White House to a Republican would cause another collapse in the economy? I sure didn’t get that from that ad, and I haven’t read anything suggesting that that was the general takeaway from it. If that was her intent, I sure hope that next time she tries to make that point she does it way less cryptically. Her comments—“It’s YOUR time.” “Everyday Americans need a champion.”—certainly don’t jibe with your take.
No, I and most of the commentators I’ve read saw it as saying, “I’m just like you!” That seemed to be the entire point.
All Clinton has to do is appear less crazy than the republicans. That should be a relatively easy task for her.
That’s true, Jerry. But if the public doesn’t know how crazy the Republicans are–and they didn’t, last Nov.–then the fact that she’s not crazy may not be enough.
I realize that there’s a lot of time for her to educate the public about what the Republicans actually are advocating, and what the effects of their economic/fiscal/regulatory policy proposals would be–and, regarding similar ones that were enacted nationally and in states such as Kansas, what the result of those policies have been.
But as of now most people really have no idea, thanks in part to Obama’s failure to tell the public, and to do so in a way that would cause the public to pay attention, and in part because of the Dems’ imbecilic decision not to “nationalize” the 2014 midterm elections and to instead talk mainly about culture-wars issues.
In my opinion, although Clinton has lots of time to do that, there’s no good reason for her to not start doing it now. She’s apparently wedded to a belief that what matters is that she “connect” with people–that she come off as a regular person—and that it’s not important for her to discuss anything more complex than that she supports an increase in the federal minimum wage, universal pre-K, and mandated paid sick leave and vacation time. Heaven knows, those are very important matters to many millions of people and also to the economy itself. But if she doesn’t explain Keynesian vs. Laffer fiscal policy and doesn’t inform people of the Republicans’ anti-government ravings and counter them with specifics, she’s very vulnerable to their Big-Gummint-is-the-problem nonsense.
It’s incredibly clear that THIS, much more than minimum-wage and universal pre-K and paid sick leave and vacation time, is what the outcome of the election will turn on (especially since those three issues and ones like them will be attacked as big-gummint-is-the-problem), not whether people like Clinton personally or even whether they dislike her wealth and cloistered-bubble life. It’s not as if any of the Republican candidates gives off a warm, cuddly feel, anyway.
Clinton seems ridiculously susceptible to Madison Avenue-type image advisors and to old-style campaign advisors who recite such out-of-date (if they were ever accurate, anyway) campaign truisms like, “People have to want to like you enough to see you in their living room each night.” As if most people still watch the evening news, and as if presidents these days ever actually speak to the public. I don’t think it’s helping Clinton AT ALL to have a humungous number of non-policy advisors and to have throngs of longtime Clintonites around her. NOT AT ALL.
But neither do I think that that will defeat her unless she continues to think that what matters is how people perceive her personally rather than Democratic vs. Republican economic/fiscal/regulatory policy. And that’s a dismayingly big “if.”