Hillary Clinton did a pretty good job with her acceptance speech Thursday night at the end of the Democratic National Convention. With the stage set by strong presentations from her husband, her daughter and President Obama, Clinton’s optimistic tone was a welcome contrast to the prior week’s doom and gloom from her November opponent, Donald Trump.
She was clearly making a pitch to two important voting blocs: the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party that supported Bernie Sanders; along with Republicans and independents who are uncomfortable with the idea of Trump as president.
In an ordinary election year, Clinton’s detail-oriented approach would be far more preferable in a president than Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip mindset. But as the country knows very well, 2016 is not an ordinary year. To make matters more challenging for Clinton, the country knows her very well, too.
It is simply difficult to reconcile the Hillary Clinton portrayed last week — intelligent, persistent, willing to make common ground, ready to be the chief executive — with the Clinton that the public has come to know over the past 25 years.
Specifically: The secretary of state who mystifyingly kept a private email system in a very public job. The Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars from foreign governments while she was the country’s top diplomat. The first lady whose denials and stonewalling about a profitable financial transaction led to the Whitewater investigation, which led to the disclosure of her husband’s affair with a White House intern and then his impeachment.
However, even a critic of Hillary Clinton must acknowledge two positive things about her: When she gets knocked down, she will get back up. She proved that during her husband’s second term in office. And she is willing to work hard for something she wants.
It remains to be seen whether this diligence is enough for voters to make her the 45th president. Sometimes it seems like Democrats have decided, “She’s not Trump, so that oughta do it.”
The problem with that is, Trump’s supporters are far more energized that Clinton’s. They have bought into his Chicken Little storyline without giving serious thought to the idea that the billionaire may be more interested in furthering his brand than in helping those who have been left behind by the country’s ongoing economic transformation.
Clinton, for all the praise heaped on her last week, struggled to knock off socialist Bernie Sanders in the primary. That is a clear signal of the limits of her appeal.
Another limit may be Clinton’s movement to the left, forced on her by Sanders. Ideas like free college tuition and large-scale student loan forgiveness are fine in theory, but clearly not something the country can afford. It is also worth noting that Clinton’s speech did not address the government’s zealous spending as a problem, focusing instead on tax increases.
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson described Clinton vs. Trump as Uninspiring vs. Unfit. Sadly, that assessment sounds about right.
