Part of Hillary Clinton's problem in the aftermath of New Hampshire is that where Obama and Edwards both have campaign themes (unity and populism, respectively), her campaign mainly had a resume. And the resume was invoked to argue that she'd be the best at this whole "president" gig -- the best at campaigning for it, the best at carrying it out, the least likely to screw it up. Problem is, she's now lost the argument about campaigning, about being the best able to survive the election. But she can still make the case that she's best able to conduct the duties of the president. And that, basically, is the argument she's making tonight at the New Hampshire Democratic Dinner.And she's good at making it. She speaks of policies easily and fluently, effectively weaves in her history on some issues, and adeptly zooms in on poignant personal stories to humanize others. She's tremendously confident talking about health care, and takes some powerful, if slightly oblique, shots at Obama, asking which individuals she's supposed to leave out of a reform bill. Indeed, her whole speech is competent and capable, offering a comprehensive agenda and, in the aggregate, coming off as nothing so much as an effective, concise, State of the Union address.Listening to her speech, it occurred to me that there's a second, less thematic, way to separate the various candidate's speeches: Scope. Obama speaks at the level of narrative. Edwards speaks of individuals. Clinton speaks of governance. Because of that, her speeches are less grabbing than theirs, but convey a greater impression of competence. Listening to the three of them, I tend to buy Hillary's argument that, on a technical level, she'd be better at this governance thing. But being president is only partially about carrying out your daily duties and greeting foreign dignitaries. It's also about inspiring the populace, moving them forward, mobilizing the population to press for change that would be impossible within the current contours of the political landscape. These are the talents Hillary doesn't convey in her speeches, but they're the ones that most move voters. If the presidency were an appointed position, Clinton's speaking style would probably win it. As it is, my hunch is she leaves a lot of voters favorably impressed, but at the end of the day, they vote -- and, in particular, change their votes -- for the candidate who moves them. HILLARY'S NEXT SPEECH.
Part of Hillary Clinton's problem in the aftermath of New Hampshire is that where Obama and Edwards both have campaign themes (unity and populism, respectively), her campaign mainly had a resume. And the resume was invoked to argue that she'd be the best at this whole "president" gig -- the best at campaigning for it, the best at carrying it out, the least likely to screw it up. Problem is, she's now lost the argument about campaigning, about being the best able to survive the election. But she can still make the case that she's best able to conduct the duties of the president. And that, basically, is the argument she's making tonight at the New Hampshire Democratic Dinner.And she's good at making it. She speaks of policies easily and fluently, effectively weaves in her history on some issues, and adeptly zooms in on poignant personal stories to humanize others. She's tremendously confident talking about health care, and takes some powerful, if slightly oblique, shots at Obama, asking which individuals she's supposed to leave out of a reform bill. Indeed, her whole speech is competent and capable, offering a comprehensive agenda and, in the aggregate, coming off as nothing so much as an effective, concise, State of the Union address.Listening to her speech, it occurred to me that there's a second, less thematic, way to separate the various candidate's speeches: Scope. Obama speaks at the level of narrative. Edwards speaks of individuals. Clinton speaks of governance. Because of that, her speeches are less grabbing than theirs, but convey a greater impression of competence. Listening to the three of them, I tend to buy Hillary's argument that, on a technical level, she'd be better at this governance thing. But being president is only partially about carrying out your daily duties and greeting foreign dignitaries. It's also about inspiring the populace, moving them forward, mobilizing the population to press for change that would be impossible within the current contours of the political landscape. These are the talents Hillary doesn't convey in her speeches, but they're the ones that most move voters. If the presidency were an appointed position, Clinton's speaking style would probably win it. As it is, my hunch is she leaves a lot of voters favorably impressed, but at the end of the day, they vote -- and, in particular, change their votes -- for the candidate who moves them. 
