The speeches

Watch Obama's speech (in particular the opening portion, about Hillary), and then watch Hillary's speech, and tell me, which one of these candidates really wants the Democratic Party to be united?

Hillary's claim that she wants the party to be united is, at this point, an utter and obvious lie. Her speech last night was sheer demagoguery, deliberately using rhetoric -- about the "popular vote," about Michigan and Florida, about electability, and so forth -- that will keep her supporters in a frenzy of anger and/or denial about the outcome of the election.

I said beforehand that it would be unforgivable if she made these sorts of arguments last night, and she made them, and it is indeed unforgivable. Absolutely unforgivable. On the very night when the party should have begun coalescing once and for all around its presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton continued to stoke the fires of intraparty civil war, instead of beginning of the process of standing down and backing off.

I'm not saying she needed to concede last night, but she needed to be gracious and conciliatory and valedictory, not combative and defiant and demagogic. She needed to explicitly attack McCain's candidacy, not implicitly attack Obama's legitimacy. She needed to speak the language of unity, not merely pay lip-service to it. She failed -- she deliberately chose to fail -- on all counts.

This notion out there that we should "respect" Hillary by not acknowledging the repugnance of last night's speech, and of her recent campaign tactics generally, is completely back-asswards. It's disrespectful to be anything other than repulsed, because such a reaction requires a belief that Hillary doesn't know perfectly well what she is doing. To give Hillary a pass is to assume she's a witless child, which she most certainly is not. She knows precisely what she's doing -- and it is the exact opposite of "uniting the party." She is willfully undermining her party's nominee.

If you don't believe me, just watch the beginning of John McCain's (widely panned) speech, in which he made a blatant -- and somewhat ham-handed, in my view, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't work -- play for disaffected Hillary voters.

McCain's efforts in this regard, aided and abetted by Clinton's rhetoric, are already bearing fruit:

[T]he RNC's convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.

See also:

HillaryGrassrootsCampaign.com, an organization with upwards of half-a-million supporters, announced today it is committed to breaking ranks with the Democratic Party and supporting Senator Hillary Clinton in the general election - regardless of her status as the party's nominee.

There will be more developments like these, and no matter what she says publicly about "unity," Hillary can't wash her hands of them. She created this monster. If you tell people, over and over again (even unto the very night that your opponent clinches victory!), that their votes aren't being counted, that they aren't being "respected," that they're "invisible," and that their chosen candidate, despite having lost, is the legitimate winner -- no matter how untrue all of those things are -- many of them are going to start believing what you're telling them. Hillary's dead-woman-walking "campaign" has become one giant Big Lie.

At this point, the only way Hillary can even begin to redeem herself is by aggressively countering this stuff -- not merely by dropping out and endorsing Obama, which she will inevitably do at some point, but by explicitly walking back her combative, divisive rhetoric. She needs to passionately make the case to her supporters, particularly women, that Obama's their man, and McCain isn't. She needs to find a plausible way to openly contradict her past statements about "elitism," electability, the "commander-in-chief test," and so forth. She needs to be the one who convinces her supporters that Obama is really and truly the legitimate nominee, that the "popular vote" doesn't matter, that nobody was "disenfranchised," that no one is "disrespecting" her "18 million" supporters. Above all, she needs to make perfectly clear that she was not robbed, that she lost fair and square.

She needs to do all this, irrespective of the fact that it will leave some of her most fervent supporters feeling "betrayed." She can't use their fragile emotions as an excuse, because she created those emotions with her shameless demagoguery. (That's what demagoguery does. That's its whole purpose.) Like I said: she created the monster. Some of the damage she's done is irreparable, which is why she can never fully be forgiven for her actions. But she can take a small step toward reconciliation by undoing as much of the damage as possible.

Somehow, though, I don't think she'll be walking back her rhetoric on any of these key points. Oh, she'll make the case for Obama on policy, and argue that he's better than McCain, for the sake of appearances. But, having planted the "she was robbed" seed in her supporters' brains, she'll let them stew about it, and she'll tell herself that if they want to stay home -- or vote for McCain -- because of that, well, there's nothing she can do. Like so much of what she says, that's a lie. But maybe it'll let her sleep at night.

Personally, I am not a Democrat -- I'm an independent -- and although the portion of my brain that views politics as a sport can't help "rooting" for Obama (he's exciting! he's inspiring! he's shiny!), the rational part of brain, which governs my actual vote, is totally undecided between Obama and McCain. Thus, my anger at Hillary is more based on my internal sensibilities -- about right and wrong, about proper and improper behavior, and, above all, about truth and untruth -- than on fear of what she'll do to Obama's chances in November. And yet I'm pretty damn angry. So I can't imagine how intense the anger must be among committed Democrats who are 100% behind Obama. They have to be livid. At this point, she's got be reaching Bush/Cheney/Lieberman levels of earned hatred, yes?

Oh, and as long as we're talking about Hillary hurting Obama's chances, check out this video clip that the Republican National Committee sent out last night:

This is Exhibit A, B, and C for why the unity ticket is wolf-face crazy. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if she were his runningmate?

UPDATE: Here's another clip the RNC is circulating:

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

If anyone doubted Obama was the right choice over Hillary, watch this speech and then compare it to the narcissistic rants from Hillary last night. I believe Obama can transcend race and gender to win the Presidency.

Hillary needs to get over her "issues" and get off the stage. Whatever she accomplished in breaking the glass ceiling with this nomination run, she is now causing more harm than good with her "I'm going to take my ball and leave" attitude. She wants to compete with men. What would a man do in this situation? Certainly not what she is doing now. She is actually fostering an environment where, in the future, a woman won't even be able to contend for the nomination. Just imagine "remember what happened with Hillary? No way we can give (insert female) a shot. What if she loses? She will do her best to ruin the party's chances, just like Hillary did."

[Scott]

I imagine if you will, the shoe being on the other foot. Do you think there is any way Obama is still even in this contest? No chance. I was originally an Edwards guy and had trouble picking between the two candidates and went with Obama although had no problem with Clinton. That has changed drastically. With her refusal to lose gracefully and her husband becoming unhinged it becomes easy and clear that O made the right decision. Not that I recommend it, but I visited Taylor Marsh's website and read the comments there and have lost any hope I had about the die-hard Hillary supporters coming around. They will do anything they can to see Obamas defeat. I hate to say it, but these people are just as bad as the fringe-right I have come to hate (Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.)

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

The funny thing is that the Left can no longer throw race and gender issues as only a Republican flaw as this primary run shows that the Left has these same issues.

[David K.]

Hillary DOES want to unite the Democratic party....behind her :)

[Joe Loy]

Brendan, I agree with all you have said here, with the sole exception of the deployment of the following rhetorical device: "Joseph Goebbels would be proud."

New subsidiary Rule: to Goebbels Up the discussion ;> is tantamount to the Hitlerization thereof, UNLESS the particular Big Lie at issue propounds something morally comparable to the historical necessity of the extermination of a People (or, equivalently, entails the antihistorical Denial of past attempts to accomplish the same).

IOW, there are big lies and then again there are Big Lies. To endlessly repeat the Bigfat Fib that I Won when in fact I lost, and that I Wuz Robbed when I merely got whupped fair & square, is One thing, and plenty bad enough. But the old devil Goebbelsry is Another thing altogether. / In witness whereof, we can well imagine how very Not Proud old Joey G. must feel if word has gotten down to Hell of Hillary's solidarity-with-Israel speech to AIPAC today ~~ and, indeed, of Barack's as well.

[Brendan]

Yes, I admit the Goebbels remark was a bit over the top. I couldn't resist, but I should have.

(Though I've gotten an e-mail from one commenter saying that it's right on. But I disagree with him, and, er, myself.)

[Brendan]

UPDATE: I took out the Goebbels line. For the record, the paragraph that begins "There will be more developments like these" previously concluded as follows:

Hillary's dead-woman-walking "campaign" has become one giant Big Lie. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

[JO]

I'm not so sure about Obama's speech. It started off fairly well, but then kind of fizzled at the end.

I'm curious though, is Michelle Obama proud of her country for a second time in her adult life?? ;-)

[Joe Loy]

Thanks. Verygood.

BTW, Obama's speech at AIPAC was Excellent (Hillary's was OK, but Y'know :). At one point Barack had the assembled LikudnikAmericans :> on their feet stomping & cheering as he proceeded on upward through his patented Winding of the Stem :}. By G*d the man is good. / If you can find a YouTube of it or somesuch, take a look.

Also btw I just read that the Two of 'em did meet & talk briefly backstage at the event.

[Angrier and Angrier]

If Barack Hussein Obama can get a standing ovation from AIPAC, that says a lot about his oratory skills. I just wish the guy would be a better debater. He goes from JFK to Dubya when he gets into a debate.

[Alasdair]

Brendan: in re editing (out) corrections, might I ask you, please, to instead use the strike-out technique, so that we can see what used to be there - as long as you are not removing text that for strong reasons should not have been visible in teh first place (like the Millionaire result) ...

One of the most powerful things about this blog is its integrity ... what was written stays written, absent very good reason for removal ...

[Aaron]

The bloggers who contribute to The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog do so anonymously. Which is a shame, because I'd really like to know who penned these reactions to the McCain speech.

OK, I lied, there's one surprise: The terrifying death rictus grin-and-snicker after every joke line. I don't know whether Americans are ready to vote for Mr McCain, but I am prepared to pay him one million dollars not to release deadly Smilex gas over the New Year's Eve crowd at midnight.

and

At the risk of bolstering the reporters-mooning-at-Obama stereotype, if this evening's speeches were a video game, a wrinkled wizard would be hollering "Finish Him!" to Barack Obama while a dizzied John McCain wobbled. And Hillary Clinton would be frenetically mashing the buttons on an unplugged controller.

[Brendan]

Alasdair, I believe I fulfill the "integrity" criterion by forthrightly noting the changes I've made in comments. I do this sort of thing regularly, so if you're under the impression that my blog adheres to a standard policy of never changing the substance of posts without so noting in the post (as opposed to in comment on the post), you're mistaken. I regard the "strike-out technique" as incredibly cluttering and aesthetically displeasing, and if I decide later that I think better of something I've written, "striking it out" makes no sense because it actually draws attention to the thing I had originally said.

When I make a change, unless it's a minor typo corrected quickly, I nearly always note the change in comments. I don't think any sense of ethics or integrity requires me to do more than that.