I can hear Michelle Malkin now............."She wore blue on purpose just to show off because everyone knows blue is the color for Democrats, blah, blah, blah"

No one takes her seriously. Not even her own republican species.

Clinton said today or will say in the future. So they will resort to their sophomoric insults and we'll hear tired old cries of Benghazi, and who knows what else. It's all they have.

The speech was strong and well delivered. She stood on the stage and exuded strength and competence, in my opinion. It was a proud day for this baby boomer female 😊.

It's really impossible to take any of the republicans seriously, in comparison to her.

It was a broad appeal, including the 1%, Wall St., and corporations. Yes, there was some criticism of them, but also praise. Overall, it was conciliatory.

She also made it clear that she views this country as the world's policeman and touted American Exceptionalism.

Here is the transcript:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026829453

Here is a post of mine, focusing on what she described as an example of the problems facing this country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026829453#post5

The surface was populism; the depths were not. There was an abundance of the personal, and the use of stories to make a point.

Don't sell yourself short.

of note:

this type of speech to contain specifics on policy. It's too early in the campaign for that. At this point, a politician should be expected to speak in more general terms about two things: what inspires him/her to run now, and the general direction he/she wants to move the country in.

More specifics on policy will come soon enough. I don't think any candidate for president can avoid addressing the President's proposed trade policy after next week. That should be interesting.

Hey, I notice that one of the shadows that often appears on your OP/threads has left its bitter mark on mine here. Gracious.

I think that's imperative

I think that's because they are in underdog positions ....kind of like in the republican contest, the "second tier" candidates have to be more forceful early (recognizing that what is "early" these days is long before campaigns used to even begin in earnest decades ago), or they risk not getting the financial resources to keep their campaigns going.

I suppose the difference could be compared to the way a basketball team with a substantial lead plays in the second-half, compared to the team that is attempting to come from behind.

The Clinton campaign will attempt to make policy statements that provide details, at a much slower pace. One can attribute various reasons for that, depending upon if they are pro-Clinton, undecided, or anti-Clinton/ pro-someone else.

Personally, I prefer the bolder approach. However, because of the early starts these days, combined with the money factors, presidential campaigns are very different in nature than what I grew up on. (Damn, I sound like an old man ....because I am an old man!)

It was supposed to be broad in nature....

As for style...seemed low key and relaxed.

There were some things that caught my ear that I was not keen on...the US as world policeman was one, but
realistically, we have always had that role and it won't change most likely. Even as Obama tried to tweak it, we're right back in Iraq again. Coalitions with other countries sort of creak along...I don't like this, but I have no way to change it...

That is the correct approach .....especially as she is the clear front-runner.

I think that Ms. Clinton is strong on social policy. However, she is not simply "business-as-usual" on foreign policy, but takes an aggressive position -- particularly as it relates to one country in the Middle East. That is, of course, the original definition of neoconservatism. And, as I stated previously, Ms. Clinton is a true neoconservative, almost exactly as was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

While that creates an advantage for a Clinton or Moynihan, in terms of being able to work cooperatively with members of the republican party, it is because they share a common ground that I do not think the Democratic Party should inhabit.

More, history has shown that, without exception, one can not make the necessary investments in domestic policy required to bring about economic-social justice, which should be central to our united efforts. It's the old "guns or butter" bit.

It's curious that the majority of the pro-Clinton folks here focus exclusively on Ms. Clinton's domestic policy positives. Certainly, these are hugely important. But they must be considered in the context of her foreign policy stances, which dictate economic realities, too. I think that a rational, intelligent person can be a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton for President, and address these issues. But we see very little of this on DU:GD.

and debate with her is going to wish he'd never been born.

the Democratic nominee, then even the quasi-debate format used these days will be an extremely unpleasant experience for the republican. It's too bad that we don't have real debates -- for example, where the candidates get to question each other. That would be entertaining.

Which many of her opponents on both sides of the spectrum are prone to do.

I expect her to win the nomination and put up quite the fight in the general. Bill will probably be there every step of the way but I don't think she needs him at all at this point. Plus he did way more harm than good last time. Hopefully, he learned something from that.

primary. She has every advantage.

I'm not sure that any republican can put up a good fight. The only risk that I can see is if they put up a bad fight. Any Democratic candidate needs to win a portion of the independent and/or Democratic Left vote, or a portion of the republican vote, in a certain number of states, to have a secure victory. A good fight helps; a bad fight can either help or hurt, as Gore and Kerry found out.

I'm far less interested in what Bill learned from 2008, than what Hillary learned. I assume she will use him carefully.

but I would vote for her even if she shaved her head and wore a zoot suit.

It's a great look!

best friends have shaved heads.

This!

Your post is very fair. I agree that she needs to improve her presence on the big stage, it will show in a convention speech that she's not completely comfortable up there. I find the criticism of her trustworthiness to be rather ironic given that she must be a very trusting person to have kept Bill all that time. Hillary is strong. People shouldn't underestimate her as a person or a politician.

Hillary has clearly learned from 2008 and from her time as Secretary of State. I expect her to handle the debates masterfully, she's not going to be rattled. I find the attack that she doesn't have positions to be rather ironic too given that her name is associated with one of the most complex legislative efforts ever, Hillarycare. She's earned her grey hair!

I believe that my OP is objective overall, though it has a bit of my opinion. Still, during primary season on DU:GD, one comes to expect the random dehydrated splotch, even on a Water Man's OP/thread. I don't bother to read anything my bitter old friend writes any more. Haven't in years.

But back to important things: a person who makes a great speech isn't always the person we want in office. Heck, Ronald Reagan was much more relaxed than most public speakers, but he was a terrible human being, and a horrible president.

I remember Jesse Jackson saying that the public often appreciates someone who isn't relaxed while speaking to a group of people -- even one who struggles -- as long as they are sincere. In a way, it's a shame that television has imposed the 15-second clip, where a one-liner can change the outcome of an election.

I think voters might actually like that she isn't putting on a total show. Makes her look human yet despite all the years in politics.

Ignore haters

I think that's true of speakers at all levels. Now that my youngest is graduating, I've accepted two offers to speak in the next three weeks. I'm hardly a good speaker -- not talented enough to be "average" -- but groups seem to appreciate my discomfort and bungling attempts to communicate.

If Ms. Clinton were a highly polished speaker, I think it would do little to improve her image among her supporters, and would be held against her by her opponents.

then read and listened simultaneously.

I thought it was a good speech and exactly what I would expect from a campaign launch presentation.

She looked healthy, invigorated and ready to roll.
She embraced her public service, and didn't run from either Obama or Clinton.
The crowd was enthusiastic.
The setting was wonderful.

I think all the elements were there for a great launch.

I also really loved Sanders' launch. (He's my guy. )

I think that all of the Democratic candidates are far superior to the republican cluster.

how each of the candidates approaches the controversial movement tolegalize Lonnie Anderson's hair. The republicans traditionally benefit from such divisive "social issues." But their silence is blinding.

No thanks... huh?

She's not as slimy as Richard Nixon... WTH??

ignoring bitter people's complaints.

And only a bitter person could twist the OP into a bitter insult. Go figure.

and witty.. love the clever punking of M$M in the subject header too btw.

On the weekends, there are less late night options for news programs (MSNBC resorts to prison shows, etc). Hence, I have been watching Fox News for brief periods -- something that I'd prefer to not do. And they focus on the strangest nonsense. Yet, MSNBC and CNN also have silliness on, too.

Nice read

and with that, another kick...

The Iraq war speech on the Senate floor is the most memorable example. I've seen her give some fiery speeches my most memorable example is from around the same time passionately shouting criticism over Republicans calling anti-Iraq war rhetoric unpatriotic. She also opened the Iraq war Senate statement with the same thing criticizing the calling of anti-Iraq war protesters unpatriotic and mentioned that the "great dissenters" have often been proven right in history which comes off as prophetic. There wasn't much of a problem I had with the overall statements of what she said except for the slamming of Russia over their lack of support on the UN Security Council over the Bosnian wars and the huge thing was "biological weapons" labs. She says no she "made a mistake" but at-best it is poor judgment -- however I doubt she isn't aware of 'the program'. The Clinton Foundation proves that.

I could take a very long time going over all my problems or things I favor about her but this is about public speaking talent which she has a lot of. She is very strong going against opponents like she took a question about her "pants on fire" false statement on Bosnia and turned that into that was '1 of however countries I have visited highlighting my foreign policy experience that will stand up to McCain.

I certainly do agree she is competent and well-informed (though it depends on what the issue or stance she is taking is) though the experience is a problem. I think Obama showed his inexperience by listening to people with experience though I can't tell what his intentions are he has remarkable did 180s giving strong defenses of both sides of the coin. The "mandate" is a good example for a Hillary Clinton thread.

I didn't hear a lot of the Presidents before Clinton give speeches but from what I read anyway Lyndon Johnson gave great speeches and now that was someone who knew our system of government very well. There are two kinds, the designed it is intended for and the reality of what it is. Such an opportunistic that knew where and how to pick his spots and was very much part of 'the program' -- though I read Truman gave poor speeches but somehow delivered the some of the best ever quotes though he is the last President that I fully trust his ethics. Jimmy Carter I do a lot and a foreign policy that puts "human rights at the forefront" should be the only kind of foreign policy the US should have.

The biggest thing is this when it comes to knowing the system of government and positive reforms. Since pretty much everything is carefully presented and words or anything really for the cameras is for appences -- what matters is what is being said in closed doors, private phone calls to foreign governments, the kind of cabinet members, what lobbyists & advisers and the sort of advice & influence they have. This is where serving business interests over the people comes into play but the unknown unknowns interest me or the known unknowns.

LBJ gave one "great" speech; it was the one on civil rights in which he used the line "and we shall overcome." But he hated giving speeches, and even Lady Bird noted in her diaries that he wasn't a strong public speaker. His strengths were in small meetings, which led to success within the larger systems of the House, the Senate, and even the White House. (His comfort level really was in the legislative branch. Like him or not, agree with him or not, one has to respect -- if not admire -- his unique skill set.)

Ms. Clinton, in my opinion, has a somewhat similar skill set. Again, like her or not, she proved capable in the Senate. Obviously, she didn't have LBJ's background. But she hit the ground running.

Like Johnson, her domestic policy agenda holds great promise. Again like LBJ, her foreign policy views (surely deeper, due to experience) could derail potential domestic advances.

or where most of these quotes from late 40s to early 60s but remember reading when Truman proposed the civil rights legislation both JFK sand LBJ were against it (though JFK changed his mind before he did where LBJ opposed every legislation until he was his VP) but LBJ was very vocal in his opposition against it -- don't know if this was Senate or House floor (can't remember but he was the D party leader) or the press or in front of a crowd people. To me its just quotes but I associated this the claim from somebody somewhere he was known for great speeches or something like knowing what to say, at the right moments, exploiting an opportunity to use rhetoric, whatever necessary to advance himself.

----

In the 1948 elections, Johnson again ran for the Senate and won in a highly controversial result. In a three-way Democratic Party primary Johnson faced a well-known former governor, Coke Stevenson, and a third candidate. Johnson drew crowds to fairgrounds with his rented helicopter dubbed "The Johnson City Windmill". He raised money to flood the state with campaign circulars and won over conservatives by voting for the Taft-Hartley act (curbing union power) as well as by criticizing unions. Stevenson came in first but lacked a majority, so a runoff was held; Johnson campaigned even harder, while Stevenson's efforts slumped.

<snip>

Johnson was appointed to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and later in 1950, he helped create the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee. Johnson became its chairman and conducted investigations of defense costs and efficiency. These investigations revealed old investigations and demanded actions that were already being taken in part by the Truman Administration, although it can be said that the committee's investigations reinforced the need for changes. Johnson's brilliant handling of the press, the efficiency with which his committee issued new reports, and the fact that he ensured every report was endorsed unanimously by the committee all brought him headlines and national attention. Johnson used his political influence in the Senate to receive broadcast licenses from the Federal Communications Commission in his wife's name.[30][3

Central to Johnson's control was "The Treatment",[35] described by two journalists:

The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the Johnson Ranch swimming pool, in one of Johnson's offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself — wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach.
Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint, and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

This was the kind of thing I meant though not sure where I read he was known or something about above average speeches. Personally, I can't remember more hearing more than a clip of him speaking to the TV from the Office making a statement on Vietnam on pieces covering the era.

I'll have to look more in Hillary Clinton's Senate career. The only things I remember was the Iraq war though there wasn't a huge focus on her at-the-time. I mostly remember Byrd, Daschle, I'm not sure what else but don't remember it being notable part of the dialogue though there weren't any controversies that brought attention to the ones I remember well. The other thing I remember from her Senate career is Grand Theft Auto so I'll have to check it out.

LBJ I view him as unconcerned on issues or convictions, just took what positions that were beneficial to take at the times he took them. Toward the end of his administration it was revealed he had COINTELPRO type of programs on lefty groups not to mention foreign policy issues you point but I respect his political skill though don't know if he was genuine as he came across as he seemed to use what works at the moment like pushing gun control after 3 notable assassinations as I'm sure there was rise in demand for it from the elctorate "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America"

How can FOX resist?

I agree with you that Hillary gave a very good speech today. She is far superior to any Republican candidate in the field, in my opinion.

I think she has to be considered the frontrunner at this time. Her strongest competition is most likely in the Democratic Party, in the person of Bernie Sanders.

So long as Bernie is in the race, Hillary cannot be on the left. Bernie has claimed that territory for the time being. A competitive race between these two may make the Democratic Party stronger than it has been in years, in my opinion.

It's funny: when we read through discussions of the "Hillary vs Bernie" variety on DU:GD, one side often resorts to the old and weak, "but DU doesn't represent America" .....or, sadder and weaker yet, "DU doesn't reflect reality." (Why, then, are they here? Arguing so passionately for their candidate?)

Of course, the reality is that DU reflects DU, and nothing more, and nothing less. And DU is a specific sub-group of Americans, each with one vote.

Hence, one can correctly read DU:GD and notice that the acrimony between these two groups of supporters of two candidates is such that after the primary is decided, the two groups are unlikely to cooperate in the manner that the "winning" group imagines.

For example, I've wrote OPs that speak positively about both Bernie and Hillary. (I've yet to focus upon their weaknesses.) The Bernie supporters always respond favorably, even to the pro-Clinton OPs. The Clinton supports fall into two sub-groups: a number of them respond positively to all of my OPs; and a group who self-identifies as "authentic" Clinton supporters drop in like a nasty little dog, to urinate on the carpet. I find their "no, thanks!" posts be be a giggle. As if I have even the slightest interest in breaking bread with them, much less in joining their club. Or, more importantly, as if any of them could possibly do that which I do with ease.

I suspect that it is this group, due to their toxicity, that could make it difficult for everyone to work together in the general election.