TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.11.2007
Hillary in Her Element

Grinnell, Iowa 

I spent yesterday afternoon and evening attending Hillary Clinton events in Vinton and nearby Tama (pronounced "tay-muh," I think). Say what you will about her limitations as a public speaker, she's very good at these small-town events, which draw a couple hundred people at a time. In the debates and her high-profile speeches, she can come off as kind of an Iron Lady--not an altogether bad thing for a presidential candidate, but not exactly inviting either. Yesterday she struck me as more of a nurturing-mother type. 

Hillary's voice at these events is warm and intimate--and maybe slightly more midwestern than you hear in Washington or New York. (The word "contract" evolved into something approaching "cahn-traik.") And when she raises it, it's in the manner of an exasperated parent, not some soulless authoritarian figure. At one point an audience member in Tama asked what could be done to stop companies from moving offshore. Nothing, Hillary lamented. It's a free country, and we can't exactly block them at the border. But, she added, there's absolutely no reason to reward these companies with cushy tax breaks. "I am sick and tired of that kind of behavior," she said, as though scolding a child. "If they want to move a job, they're not going to get a single cent." I wondered if she ever inadvertently added "young man" or "young lady" to the end of a line like this.  

Despite all the hard work John Edwards has put in since 2004 and Barack Obama's obvious intelligence, Hillary's wonk credentials remain unsurpassed. But she doesn't wallow in them--the wonkiness goes down easy. You could hear the Tama audience gasp in amazement when, in response to a question about energy policy, Hillary mentioned a prototype lithium-ion fuel cell that had powered a car 1,500 miles on only ten gallons of gas. She later explained how the Model T's of Henry Ford's day were actually more efficient in some respects than the typical contemporary car--something I'm sure will be repeated in kitchens across Eastern Iowa. And Hillary is funny--not Richard Pryor funny, not subversive in any way for that matter, but still genuinely amusing. Responding to a question about what it would mean to be the first female president, Hillary talked, as she often does, about the 95-year-old women who approach her at campaign events to say they dream of living to see her make history. Then she told a story about a 98-year-old woman she recently met in New Hampshire. This is probably my last presidential election, the woman told her. Oh, I don't know, Hillary said, I may need you for my re-election. Well, the woman reconsidered, my doctor did just install a new pacemaker that's supposed to last seven years...

One final thought: After seeing Hillary up close, the planted-question fiasco makes even less sense to me. That's because Hillary turns out to be unusually good with hostile questions. At one point a longtime military man got up and ticked off all the usual objections to allowing gays to serve (close quarters and all). Hillary respectfully heard him out, acknowledged his service and his goodwill, then explained her position in terms he could appreciate. It doesn't make sense to discriminate against patriotic people just because they're gay, she said. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we force them out--just look at all those Arab-language translators we've lost. But gay soldiers must observe the same uniform code of military justice everyone else does, and she would no more tolerate misbehavior by gays than by straight soldiers. The man may or may not have been satisfied, but the rest of the audience seemed won over.  

There was also this: A little earlier in the evening, we in the press section heard some murmuring from a man who was either drunk or unstable or both. Pretty soon the murmuring turned into outright heckling. And, within a couple minutes, the entire crowd was aware that something uncomfortable was about to happen. Hillary was the calmest person in the room. She looked at the heckler and practically cooed: "Just a minute, sir. You'll get a chance. You'll get a chance." You would have thought she was talking to an over-eager first-grader. Of course, maybe it's easier to be calm when you have a Secret Service detail at the ready (the man was promptly hustled out into the street). But I've never seen a candidate handle something that disruptive with such poise.

--Noam Scheiber 

Posted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:31 AM with 16 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

"But I've never seen a candidate handle something that disruptive with such poise"

What about John Kerry? I thought he showed great courage under fire when that crazy kid was being tased.

November 20, 2007 8:27 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

The thing is, Senator Clinton IS calm - always. I can't picture her ever losing it in any way in public. She's often rewarded for this by being called names of course - cold, calculating, what have you - rather than being respected for her maturity.  

Imagine the drama queen Guiliani being held accountatble for his feet stamping, his whining, personalized, condescending treatment of just about everyone in the way a woman would be if she had those characteristics.  Fat chance.

Gender whining for the day over, I promise.  Thanks for the great post Noam.

November 20, 2007 9:05 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Wandreycer1:

Did you see her in Philly 3 weeks ago? She has a conniption.

I think most people think she's cold because they cannot relate to her. Most people are either in marriages or have TRIED (and often failed) to be in a marriage that is loving. People don't relate to Hillary's construct-marriage.

November 20, 2007 9:20 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Wow, so she doesn't have horns. Who knew?

Look, either HRC or Obama would be a strong candidate. Let them debate substance and compete to show us who has the more coherent, creative, achievable plan for helping working families.

John Edwards, please recognize that you're out of your depth and give your support to either of your betters.

November 20, 2007 9:33 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Tep:

Can I bounce something off of you? If we address healthcare, doesn't that pretty much solve that problem (the problem of economic anxiety amongst the working class)? If working families are having economic anxieties (caused by a variety of things, including healthcare, fuel costs, job security, hoards of brown people invading), then if we address one HUGE thing (healthcare), won't that take the pressure off of the other things and make it easier to handle a sketchy job situation, pay for gas, and mentally cope with the increasing amounts of racial minorities in their proximity and attending their children's schools?

November 20, 2007 9:43 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

This is what I think VC - immigration over health care?  I just don't see it.  I think one feeds the other.  As in "I'm frigging broke paying for health care or even bankrupt because of it and on top of it, I have to worry about what little I can scounge up in terms of work or benefits being diluted by law breakers."  

Senator Clinton had what was for her, a conniption in Philadelphia - do you really think it was that bad?  When was the last time you've ever seen that happen?  Her losing her composure? I've seen her heckled for her fat legs, called a lesbian - these things SCREAMED out - and her reacting with alacrity and surprising dignity.  All of those grand jury appearences with her head held high. This is one of the reasons working class people like her, I guarentee you.  They've seen that woman take indignity with grace for years.  That matters to them.  It's one of the reasons I admire her too - rational or not.

As far as her marriage, I don't even go there.  Every marriage is a planet unto itself and I cannot stand mind reading about someone else's marriage. I honestly don't care what their arrangement is.  

I do think they adore each other, period, whatever else may be in there.  I'll never forget a tape I saw of them right before the famous 1991 60 Minutes interview.  A gigantic studio light fixture fell to the floor right next to them, it would have killed them had it hit them, the crashing sound was like a bomb.  

The tape was rolling, the camera man had dived for cover.  Well, the Clinton's didn't even know the camera was there, let alone rolling.  The tender way they held each other, looked in each other's eyes, held faces, hugged, kissed, thanked God each other was alright - you can't remotely fake that.  That is a real man and wife and a real marriage.  Even if Bill Clinton is a crappy husband.

PS I agree about Edwards - I hope he gets over himself and does what is right and soon.

November 20, 2007 10:36 AM

butchie b said:

No, VC, the volatility problem is greater than health care.  Look at the rise of defined contribution retirement plans, as opposed to the defined benefit plans that used to be the norm.  It's all up to the individual now, nothing is secure.

Then look at the political class's utter and complete failure to address entitlement reform - SS and Medicare.  We all know that there is, ahem, trouble ahead with boomer retirement.  if you are under 40, with a spouse and 2 kids, where is your retirememnt coming from.

AND there's health care, and a public education system that is in free fall in many places (though not all).

Health care reform is overdue, and would help all of us, but it won't be enough.

November 20, 2007 11:14 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Well Butchie, it's not our fault all you fatcats raided the lockbox.  Are you enjoying tha extra washing machine and DVD player?  Hope it was worth it.

November 20, 2007 11:23 AM

basman said:

virginiacentrist

You're a bore.

November 20, 2007 12:32 PM

The Stump said:

One other thing about those Clinton events yesterday: The woman is not at all bashful about stealing

November 20, 2007 12:58 PM

teplukhin2you said:

VA Centrist: see bitchie's wise comments. Leave aside SS for a second. One of the many unreported scandals is that the majority of US public pension funds across the land (firemen's, teachers', govt workers generally) are UNDERFUNDED. ie they will not be able to meet their obligations to their millions of retirees. Ditto for many corporate pension funds, which is why you see stalwarts like IBM (!) desperately trying to weasel out of their obligations to their retirees.

Btw, this is why you see these funds' porr sadsack fund managers desperately shoveling money at any hedge fund, no matter how lame, that promises to juice up their returns with very risky "alternative" class investments. IOW they're not just underfunded, they're also increasingly exposed to huge risks that their fund managers poorly understand, which means we can expect to see more debacles like that Orange County public pension fund implosion from the early 1990s. Butchie's right: this is a HUGE problem. No one's even addressing it. Can't even find any attention to it in the business press, let alone the NYT or CNN or the others.

That said, VA, you're absolutely right that Priorities 1,2, and 3 are universal health care, UHC, UHC, and that delivering on that would reduce a great deal of economic insecurity. Me, I've always believed it wiser to focus on 1-2 Big Things and really nail them than try to do a dozen lesser things.

But if health care is truly the 800-lb gorilla, it's not enough to merely "address" it. This will be a battle royal, and only total victory is acceptable. Sorry to go all bolshevik on this, but if our guy (or woman) doesn't use every possible weapon and hurl him/herself into the fight with the iron determination to WIN, THIS TIME, with nothing less than UHC and affordable decent care for everyone, then it just ain't gonna happen. I like him, nice smart looks great etc, but I just do not see that fire, or steel, in your hero Obama. I have little confidence that he can or will deliver affordable UHC.

November 20, 2007 12:58 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Amplification of above comments on Obama's low chances of getting UHC done: the insurance lobby doesn't give a f*** about healing the partisan rift, uniting red and blue, etc. These people's very existence is at stake, and they will hurl everything they've got at our guy or woman. If we're not cunning, even ruthless, and ruthlessly determined to win, we will fail yet again. That's just not acceptable in my book. I personally have been suffering from this idiocy for going on a quarter century now. We have to get it done this time, and my vote goes to whoever will -- not probably, not maybe, not given-the-right-confluence-of-events, but will, come hell or high water, gets the damned thing done this time.

November 20, 2007 1:06 PM

virginiacentrist said:

RE: economic insecurity

Points taken - especially on pensions. I'm so far from that sort of thing that it rarely enters my conscience. You've obviously given much more thought to this than I.

I'm just thinking to myself, though, that fixing income inequality (or economic insecurity in the lower to middle classes) is easier than we might imagine. You just need to do a wealth transfer between the rich and poor - and find a way to do it that doesn't stifle economic growth. Healthcare paid for by a tax increase on the rich seems like a good way to do that. Same thing with problems with the pension system. We can shore up/improve social security by raising the cap on payroll taxes. Another transfer from the investing class (who have reeped the benefits of corporate pension raids) and the working class (getting screwed by pension raids).

RE: basman:

Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

RE: Obama's healthcare plan

I don't like it at all. But I also see his point. It's going to be too hard to just blow the 100 billion dollar insurance industry to smitherines. The important part is to establish a system that can be built upon incrementally.

November 20, 2007 2:53 PM

ralphnelle said:

Tep,

Why was Edwards a "turkey" when you met him? Did you post that somewhere else?

November 20, 2007 4:05 PM

butchie b said:

Wandrey, the "raid" started under LBJ.  There were no DVDs to get.  Both parties, all administrations, have masked the true size of their deficits by putting the SS surplus on budget.  So spare me the fatcat stuff, and I won't include social workers in my list of elites.  :-)

tep is correct, any UHC fight will be, as someone once said, a long, hard slog.  But the insurance industry need not go to have a major reform.  Guarentee a basic UHC, and let the insurance pukes add on everything the gov't won't cover.  That plan has at least a chance of winning.

November 20, 2007 4:12 PM

teplukhin2you said:

ralphnelle - see Plank thread on Elizabeth Edwrds for the details. Very surprising, very very disappointing. I've never heard so much irrelevant, childish BS from a major pol face to face.

It was bad enough that I'd consider supporting Obama in order to keep Edwards off the ticket.

November 22, 2007 12:02 AM