Were they really that chummy, like the people on television are saying? My sense, as I watched Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at their joint “unity” rally in New Hampshire yesterday, was that both knew that this was something they had to do, and they put on their game faces and did it.
Clinton said little to address the lingering anger of some of her supporters in any direct way. Eventually, about 15 minutes into her talk, she addressed two sentences to those “now considering not voting, or voting for Sen. McCain. I strongly urge you to reconsider.”
This is probably understandable. If she’d dwelled on that too much, the talking heads probably would have obsessed on it. If I were one of those angry Hillary people, I’m not sure this rather cursory plea would have mollified me. But at least she did mention Obama’s name repeatedly and stressed how important it was that he be elected.
Obama was gracious, but no more gracious than he needed to be. I felt that, oddly, Obama has been more gushing about Clinton when not in her presence recently, in some of the speeches he was giving just after the primary battle ended. It was good that Obama mentioned Bill Clinton, but I felt he could have said more about Bill. He said only that the Democratic Party will need both Clintons going forward, but I think he should have walked back a bit from some of the things he said during the primary that made the He-Clinton chafe, about how he wasn’t a transformational president and all that.
I still somehow get the sense watching that them they don’t exactly adore each other. Was it a little bit of a slight by some advance person that the stool on which Obama sat while Clinton spoke was too high for the much shorter Clinton to prop herself on, and so she had to stand? My experience teaches me that these things are usually oversights and coincidences. But I just wasn’t feeling the love in the hugest way.
Ah well. They did what they needed to do, I expect. The insta-verdict on cable is uniformly positive, and what they think matters a lot more than what I think. It means that any “Democratic disarray” narrative won’t be able to gain any traction now.
Meanwhile, a more important thing happened behind the scenes yesterday, when the Obama campaign hired Clinton’s top-drawer policy person, Neera Tanden. Did you ever stop to wonder why Clinton, the more centrist and cautious of the two candidates, had a bolder and more progressive healthcare plan than Obama did? The answer is largely Tanden. She has campaign experience and White House experience and will, one hopes, serve ably and prominently not just in the campaign but in an Obama administration.
The thing to watch for now is the impact of yesterday’s event and the Tanden hire on Clinton’s major donors. This idea that Obama has to assume responsibility for Clinton’s full debt of $22.5m seems preposterous to me. Eighteen million votes earns you some leverage, but not that much leverage.
Obama has an election to win, and $20-plus million is quite a lot to expect him to spend on something unrelated to that goal. Besides, the Clintons are multimillionaires, and their only heir works at a hedge-fund.
Big Clinton backers like Susie Tompkins Buell, a California money person who’s been quite vocal about her displeasure with the way the primary turned out, ought now to get on the team. But no one tells rich people what to do. A small handful of folks like Buell can continue to make trouble if they choose to.
Finally, there are the questions of the Clintons’ roles at the convention and thereafter. Both deserve prominent roles at the convention, she more than he, and the Obama people shouldn’t nitpick that — they get to vet every word both will speak anyway. As for fall campaigning, it’s clear now that Hillary can be trusted to do whatever is asked. Bill, on the other hand, has not achieved closure. He may be a petulant man-child, but he’s still Bill Clinton. Obama needs a unity rally with him, too, whether in front of an admiring throng or on some back porch in two rocking chairs with a bottle of scotch.
