Charles Pierce on HRC's rollout speech

[MBS]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35709/hillary-clinton-roosevelt-island-speech/
Charlie Pierce speaks for me- both for his analysis of HRC's speech, and for his stinging but IMHO spot-on assessment of Bill Clinton's writing and speaking skills.

No, Hillary Rodham Clinton is not going to make anyone forget Lincoln, or Demosthenes, or even the current president, for that matter. Her official campaign launch on Saturday featured a fine speech, adequately delivered, and thick with . .. policy proposals
. .. .Frankly, I thought, on its substance, the speech put a great deal on the line. HRC has been criticized subsequently for "borrowing" ideas from Senator Professor Warren (on the economic depredation practiced by Chris Christie's primary constituency) and from Bernie Sanders (on the deforming effect of the money power on elections.) This is the heart of that business about how HRC's speech was "written by consultants." (I'm sure Jeb-!- was laboring by the fireside last night, writing his speech in chalk on the back of a coal shovel.) No matter how she arrived at it, she now owns what she said. She either stands by it, or faces the political consequences of not doing so. That is not an inconsiderable risk. And, throughout what is now a respectably decent Democratic primary campaign, she will have to stand by what she said even in those cases where it can be made to seem dissonant with her earlier political career. Her sincerity on these issues will be tested, fairly and unfairly, politely and not, over and over again. If she trims or hedges, the country now has her words to measure her by. The speech was long and thick, but there wasn't a triangle in it. That made it interesting.

She's no orator. (Pro tip: neither is anybody else in the race.) She wouldn't know a punchline if it hit her in the chin. But neither is she her husband, whose speeches always conjured up the image of a sprawling beach house on which the architect had gone wildly out of control. (Bill Clinton is that most dangerous of critters -- somebody who can't write who thinks he can.) This was something of a statement of purpose, and one she will be forced to stand by over the next 18 months. For an announcement, that's all you can reasonably expect.

[ladjf]

1. This article reminds me a lot of the Clinton speech.

It covers a lot of topics but seemed short on "traction".

[MBS]

2. I know what you mean.

For instance,the riff about Christie, though entertaining, seemed beside the point.
Nevertheless, what I liked about his analysis is that he was able to separate the issue of oratory skills from the content of the speech, and he looked at the content from a somewhat different perspective than the standard meme.

[trueblue2007]

3. I thought her speech was terrific.

[MBS]

5. definitely really good on the substance.

A serious speech by a serious candidate. If voters will for once focus on the issues, instead of superficial stuff -and if people will actually VOTE- Dems should keep the White House and take back at least the Senate.

I assume that, as usual, the media will not be helpful. But miracles do happen.

[shadowmayor]

4. Cicero beware!

Straight ahead critique without the usual flowers and praise, or pinching one's nose with disgust. Now for the real challenge. Take a look at the geniuses behind the boy Bush president and his writers and try to dissect the mish-mash of nouns and verbs and freedom of course.

"You see, I'm the decider"; apparently not the writer.