Were you in this campaign just for me?

A quick post for today: last night, Hillary Clinton gave a much-anticipated address to the Democratic National Convention. If you haven't seen it, here's the linkie:


Those of you who know me know that I've never had much affection for Hillary Clinton. I think she and her husband embody the permanent campaign that has laid waste to our politics. Bill was a decent president, and is often hailed as one of the great politicians of his generation. This assessment is largely true, but Bill's genius was in his tactical abilities rather than his strategic talents. His administration was incredibly adept at daily hand-to-hand combat with the Republicans, but lacking in its ability to piece together a coherent message that unified his presidency. It's not surprising that he was able to win reelection even while his party lost even more seats in the House two years after losing control of that body for the first time in decades.

Hillary has the same problem without many of Bill's positive attributes: the effusive charm, the innate talent for empathy, and gifts as a speaker. I think this explains why she lost the nomination to Obama: her campaign was incredibly proficient at negative campaigning, but she lacked the charisma to compensate. Like her husband, Hillary ran a tactics-first campaign that struggled from week to week to find a coherent message beyond the shininess of the Clinton brand.

That was my long-winded way of saying that I don't like Hillary. But back to the present.

Her convention address was certainly one of the best speeches I've seen her give. One of the little things I've noticed over the course of the past primary campaign was Hillary's evolution as a speaker. Initially Hillary was a bit wooden, a la Al Gore. She seemed to have no concept of gesturing, and her ability to vary her tone left something to be desired. Something I found especially grating was her inability to change her volume. She seemed to scream any line or phrase she wanted to emphasize. "That's why we need to send another Clinton to the White House" would become THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO SEND ANOTHER CLINTON TO THE WHITE HOUSE instead of "THAT'S why we NEED to send ANOTHER Clinton to the White HOUSE!" A good speech to watch as a reference is her speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

While she still lacks the seemingly easy passion of her husband and the polish of Barack Obama's almost preacher-like cadence, she's become a pretty capable speaker in her own right. She understands the usefulness of the silent beat. She is screaming less and less. Her speechwriting is even improving (whether or not this is a kudos for her or a speechwriter is another matter). Gone are lame catch phrases like I'M IN IT TO WIN IT! In are pretty good lines like "Were you in this campaign just for me?"

So all in all an impressive performance. Whether or not this is going to persuade the remaining Hillary holdouts to devote their energies to Obama, a question asked countless times by pundits over the past few weeks, I do not know. But at the very least, I have seen Hillary's speechifying abilities improved greatly, which I am sure will be useful to her later political endeavors.