A Few Notes on Hillary’s Speech
All in all, Hillary Clinton’s DNC speech last night was pretty yawn-inspiring stuff, with a couple or three things that made me scratch my head and wonder what planet she called home.
The very first thing that caught my attention is how she completely dissed her husband at the very beginning of the speech. When you mention how you’re a proud Mom and a proud Democrat and a proud member of the Rotary Club and a proud member of the Senate Fantasy Football league, if you don’t say that you’re a proud wife (especially when your husband is sitting in a seat of honor), it’s going to be noticed.
The second thing I noticed was the Senator’s interesting idea about how our economy works.
We need a president who understands that we can’t solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in the new technologies that will build a green economy.
I did notice that after she said that, she pushed the mask back up on her face because she knows that there’s only so much Socialist craziness that America can accept. I didn’t expect much in the way of free market ideals from a person who has spent almost all of her working life drawing a government paycheck and looks on people in private industry as either victims to be rescued from their misery or walking bags of money for her campaign. Still, I was disappointed because I also didn’t expect something quite that silly from her.
The last thing I noticed was that, according to the Senator, men barely had a thing to do with the suffrage movement.
I’m a United States Senator because in 1848 a group of courageous women and a few brave men gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, many traveling for days and nights, to participate in the first convention on women’s rights in our history.
And so dawned a struggle for the right to vote that would last 72 years, handed down by mother to daughter to granddaughter — and a few sons and grandsons along the way.
These women and men looked into their daughters’ eyes, imagined a fairer and freer world, and found the strength to fight. To rally and picket. To endure ridicule and harassment. To brave violence and jail.
And after so many decades — 88 years ago on this very day — the 19th amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote would be forever enshrined in our Constitution.
You like that little bit of rhetorical magic? It was just “a few” men involved in passing the 19th Amendment. I understand the whole “grrrl power” theme of her speech and all that, but it still rankled that many men who worked in their state and local governments to pass suffrage laws well before the 19th Amendment was passed were reduced to playing the roles of the Professor and Mary Ann in her speech. She also glided very neatly over the fact that unless 2/3 of the men in Congress and the majority of the men in 2/3 of the states didn’t vote for the 19th Amendment, it would not have passed. A simple “thank you” would not have been out of place and would have been well-received, I think.
Aside from those three points, her speech was pretty bland and safe. She could just as easily have given it in 2004, substituting “John Kerry” for “Barack Obama” and it wouldn’t have needed any substantive changes. I can’t help but think that, no matter what happens in November, we’ve seen the last of Hillary Clinton as a national candidate. I”m a bit sad that she couldn’t have mustered a better speech to go out on.
Other Posts of Interest:
- It Looked Like a Hillary Convention Last Night
- Waiting for the Kitchen Tray to Drop in Denver
- The Democratic Three-Ring Circus Comes to Denver
Category: 2008 Democratic National Convention
Funny, I specifically noticed the last two of those points at the time. The first, I didn't realize until you brought it up. But the energy investment section was the one that bothered me–the other two might be insulting, but don't lead directly to policy recommendations that damage the country.
"giving windfall profits to the oil companies"? Excuse me, they already earned the profits, all you can debate is how much to let them keep.
She is also, apparently, unaware that the energy companies are the largest investors in alternative energy research–for perfectly good, capitalistic reasons: fruitful research leads to more profits. Research that doesn't show results will be dropped. Leave it to bureaucrats without a profit motive, and you end up funding research into perpetual motion machines, because con artists don't let inconvenient facts get in the way when writing grant applications.
Very good points, EricH.
One thing I'd add is that on the subject of energy, most folks are very susceptible to conspiracy theories. If you were to ask the average American why wind and solar aren't a bigger part of our energy portfolio, you'll get all sorts of theories about oil companies and rich Congressmen. You might here, once in a great while, the truth – if wind and solar could practically be a bigger part of our energy supply, they would be.