Home > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
Dear Hillary
-
Feb 19, 2008 Posted by Rich Harwood
I was asked during the Q&A session following a speech last Thursday what tactics I'd suggest you embrace given Senator Barack Obama's ascendancy. I write this before anyone has cast a vote in Wisconsin, though what I have to say would be the same whether you ultimately win or lose. My chief goal here is not to pretend to be your campaign consultant, because I'm not. Rather, I simply want to let you know what I told the person who asked the question.
Attacking hope won't get you where you want to go. The emerging response to Senator Obama by both you and Senator McCain has been to try and undermine notions of "hope" that he has spoken about. But attacking "hope" as a fluffy concept that won't put food on people’s tables or keep jobs in America denies something of critical importance to many Americans. People are in search of something that has been missing in our society for far too long. And, there is, indeed a huge difference between false hope and authentic hope, something I have written and spoken about extensively. But don't make us cynical about "hope" as you seek the presidency. Disagree with your opponents on substantive matters in ways that let people draw their own conclusions about hope; otherwise, you might win but have little hope within the nation on which to build change.
Go into an empty room and name three defining characteristics of your candidacy. My advice to you is the same advice I give to leaders and public innovators across the nation: find an empty room, go into it alone, decompress for an hour or two, and then pull out a small sheet of paper and write down three key defining issues or characteristics of your candidacy. I say "three" because people and often leaders too need clarity about the purpose of our efforts and about what motivates us. You often say that you have 35 years of public service. Tell us about it. Keep it short. Make it about the nation’s future and why you're the one to lead. Currently, you’re offering people a series of fragments which don't add up to a cogent narrative.
Where do you want to go? I know you have numerous policy papers, and that you can speak fluently about your positions. But, Senator Clinton, the main problem you face is the very one you yourself identified in your New Hampshire victory speech: you must find your own voice. Right now your tactics, such as attacking hope or arguing with Senator Obama over details of health care plans, are all people see and hear. Maybe these tactics will work in the short run, but a successful campaign cannot be built on them. You must give rise to a clear narrative about the path you seek to pursue: where did you come from, why are you here, and where do you want to go.
Next, kick your advisors off the plane. I don't know for sure, but my sense is that you have a lot of people yelling in your ear and pulling at you. It's too much. Get rid of some (many) of these folks and go with the three ideas from above; use your own voice; get rid of the noise. Now, I've worked on quite a few campaigns myself, and I know it's not as simple as I'm suggesting. But I've seen many candidates soar when they’ve freed themselves from their advisors and opened up their own voice. Too much advice leads to too many tactics; that's not what you need.
Now, last week, when this person asked me the question about you, they seemed to want to know why you weren’t doing better, and why there was this growing Obama-frenzy across the country. I don't profess to know the answers to all these questions, but what I found myself saying to this individual was that I have followed your career, had met you once in the Governor's mansion in Arkansas, and that I believe that you hold very deep convictions about public life and the welfare of society. Yet these convictions often seem to be missing from your campaign.
Literally, as I write this last sentence, I received an e-mail from a colleague in my office which suggests that the Wisconsin race is now tightening. No matter whether you win or lose I hope you will consider your path ahead. What you do is important - to yourself, the nation, and the condition of public life.
-
Re: Dear Hillary
Feb 23, 2008 | Judy Burnette | eduadvocate1@earthlink.net
You left out a key element in your suggestions to Hillary: While it may be clear that she holds "very deep convictions about public life and the welfare of society" it is not evident that she holds any feeling or regard for the American people. Hillary comes across as a scold; she knows best, and everyone else should just fall in line. Her message is always "I"-- not "We"-- just leave everything to her, and she will handle it. Nobody likes a "know it all" and we damned sure don't want to hear her nagging, grating voice for four long years!!
-
Re: Dear Hillary
Feb 20, 2008 | Michelle Mehta | stillmehta@hotmail.com
Rich,
Your comments really resonated with me. After being a Hillary supporter for many years, I shocked myself by voting for Obama last week. I agree that Clinton has so much to contribute, but she seems stuck on the treadmill of negative politics and reinforcing a system that just isn't working. Obama offers the hope of a new way of thinking and the ability to become unentrenched with the stagnation we've experienced for so long. You helped me clarify my own thoughts about this...so thanks!
Michelle
-
Re: Dear Hillary
Feb 19, 2008 | Pat | patzealley@hotmail.com
What good advice! Has Hillary seen your letter? She knows this but needs to have the encouragement to do what you have suggested. I believe she is the best candidate which is why I voted for this today in the Wisconsin primary. I wish she could have you for a campaign consultant.
-
Re: Dear Hillary
Feb 19, 2008 | MZ | pacomj@earthlink.net
I "bought into" Eliot Spitzer's promise for change in New York. It didn't take long after day one to realize I had been "had" again by another one of my Democratic candidates who talked a good talk but really had no plan for achieving change. I "HOPE" that one of the Democratic candidates starts telling the American people how they are going to achieve "CHANGE" by working within the system rather than against it. At least a good few New Yorkers now know better than to fall for the campaign rhetoric.
-
Re: Dear Hillary
Feb 19, 2008 | Shaun Dakin | sdakin@usa.net
Rich,
I think you hit the nail on the head with the difference between authentic hope and false hope.
That is the rub here.
Many of us \"old folks\" are worried. Worried that Obama represents a false hope. Represents only \"talk\" of change, rather than real change.
Yet, when you look at his record it is not one of change, but one of status quo. It is one where he voted \"not present\" most of the time.
I remember the hope of the Clinton 92 campaign. Heck I bought into it and was there at the inauguration where the nation was to be brought together and the man from \"hope\" was to change Washington.
Then reality hit and hit hard. Within weeks of Clinton coming to power it all imploded as the powers that be in Washington decided to show Clinton who was boss -- and those were leaders from his OWN PARTY.
I\'m worried that the same will happen to Obama. He has not been tested. He has not been specific.
Will it be authentic hope. Or, will it be false hope?
Shaun