Hillary Clinton Accepts Nomination To Cap Off A Largely Successful Convention

Hillary Clinton delvers a largely successful acceptance speech that caps off a convention that ran far smoother than its Republican counterpart.

Hillary Clinton Convention Speech

Capping off a convention that, notwithstanding some bumps at the beginning thanks to Bernie Sanders supporters still holding on to the emotion of a campaign that has been over since June and related controversy regarding former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, seems to have gone far more smoothly than last week’s Republican Convention, Hillary Clinton took the stage late last night to claim the nomination for President that she has been seeking for at least the last decade or more, thus setting in motion a campaign that is likely to be among the hardest fought in recent memory:

PHILADELPHIA — Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, who sacrificed personal ambition for her husband’s political career and then rose to be a globally influential figure, became the first woman to accept a major party’s presidential nomination on Thursday night, a prize that generations of American women have dreamed about for one of their own.

Declaring that the nation was at “a moment of reckoning,” Mrs. Clinton, 68, urged voters to reject the divisive policy ideas and combative politics of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump. She offered herself as a steady and patriotic American who would stand up for citizens of all races and creeds and unite the country to persevere against Islamic terrorists, economic troubles, and the chaos of gun violence.

“Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart, bonds of trust and respect are fraying,” said Mrs. Clinton, who worked on the speech until the early hours of Thursday morning. “And just as with our founders there are no guarantees. It truly is up to us. We have to decide whether we all will work together so we all can rise together.”

Mrs. Clinton radiated confidence, from her pungent delivery and easy laugh to the unusually expressive ways she shifted her tone and delighted in her own best lines. She smoothly acknowledged her own limitations and trust issues as a public figure and forcefully challenged Mr. Trump over his claims that he alone could fix America’s problems.

And after 25 years in a sometimes brutal national spotlight, Mrs. Clinton tried to explain who she is and what drives her — from her Methodist faith to her passion for government policy that could mean all the difference for people.

“I sweat the details of policy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Because it’s not just a detail if it’s your kid — if it’s your family. It’s a big deal. And it should be a big deal to your president.”

It was one of several contrasts she drew with Mr. Trump, who has barely explained how he would carry out his policy goals. And she received help from several Republicans and military veterans who took the convention stage earlier in the evening to warn that Mr. Trump was not fit for the presidency and would take the United States to “a dark place of discord and fear,” as a retired general, John Allen, put it. Democrats in the convention hall broke out into a booming, lengthy chant of “U.S.A., U.S.A.!”

(…)

Few recent political conventions have had a night gusting with so much history and high emotion. If elected, Mrs. Clinton would become the 45th president of the United States, as well as the first to be married to a former president, Bill Clinton, the nation’s 42nd.

She would be the latest in a long line of Yale graduates and accomplished lawyers to lead the country, but she would also be the first mother and grandmother to be commander in chief, decades after women became heads of state elsewhere.

Democrats roared with passion and pride as a beaming Mrs. Clinton took the stage after her daughter, Chelsea, introduced her as an American who was inspired by her own mother’s impoverished childhood and had faced personal and professional choices that defined generations of women. The two locked eyes and fell into a long embrace as Mrs. Clinton patted her back. A moment later, Mrs. Clinton waved at Mr. Clinton, and he blew her a kiss.

Then Mrs. Clinton, who has given only a few major political speeches in her life, delivered her biggest yet. She offered a positive portrait of America that felt like a different country than the nation in decline that Mr. Trump often describes and that many voters fear has come to pass after years of terrorism at home and abroad and the growing gap between rich and poor.

“He’s betting that the perils of today’s world will blind us to its unlimited promise,” Mrs. Clinton said. “He wants us to fear the future and fear each other. Well, a great Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, came up with the perfect rebuke to Trump more than 80 years ago, during a much more perilous time: ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'”

Mrs. Clinton, facing a three-month general election campaign against an unpredictable Mr. Trump, who has risen in the polls since his convention speech last week, hoped that her remarks here would not only energize her party, but also help her connect with undecided and independent voters who are skeptical of her candidacy.

She nodded toward the political work she still had to do. Praising her rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, she told his mostly liberal supporters — some of whom booed or staged a “silent protest” in the hall, declining to applaud her speech — “I want you to know, I’ve heard you. Your cause is our cause.”

And she acknowledged that many voters still do not relate to her after her eight years as first lady, eight as a senator, and four as secretary of state.

“The truth is, through all these years of public service, the ‘service’ part has always come easier to me than the ‘public’ part,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I get it that some people just don’t know what to make of me,” she added before sharing memories of her humble roots and life lessons from church and her mother — particularly, “no one gets through life alone.”

More from The Washington Post:

PHILADELPHIA — Hillary Clinton sought to transcend doubts about her character by presenting an uplifting vision for the nation’s future, delivering the biggest speech of her enduring public life here Thursday as she formally accepted the Democratic presidential nomination.

Declaring that the United States is at “a moment of reckoning,” Clinton promised that “progress is possible” and offered herself as a fearless executive who would get the job done. She also warned against what she considers the dangers represented by Republican nominee Donald Trump, who she said would usher in “midnight in America.”

In an address that electrified delegates and put a personal exclamation point on the four-day Democratic National Convention, Clinton yoked the history of Philadelphia, the cradle of American democracy, with her own historic candidacy to become the country’s first female president.

“Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart,” she said. “Bonds of trust and respect are fraying. And just as with our founders, there are no guarantees. It truly is up to us. We have to decide whether we all will work together so we all can rise together.”

Clinton’s 57-minute address was a coda to a convention week in which Democrats offered a meticulously choreographed answer to Trumpism and its apocalyptic view of the nation. They espoused service and diversity, inclusion and acceptance, and spoke of how the nation is “stronger together” — the newly energized anthem of the Clinton campaign.

The candidate delivered a scathing, although at times humorous, dressing-down of Trump and his polarizing brand of politics, declaring that as president she would neither ban a religion nor build a wall to keep immigrants out of the country.

“He’s taken the Republican Party a long way, from ‘Morning in America’ to ‘Midnight in America,’ ” Clinton said, the former a reference to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign theme. “He wants us to fear the future and fear each other. . . . We are clear-eyed about what our country is up against. But we are not afraid. We will rise to the challenge, just as we always have.”

Throughout the speech there were spasms of protest and boos — some people unfurled banners reading “#WIKILEAKS” and “KEEP YOUR PROMISES” — which were mostly drowned out by shouts of “Hill-a-ry.” The scene served as a reminder that Clinton is continually trailed by those who find her objectionable, even when accepting her party’s nomination.

Clinton narrated the crusades of her nearly five decades in public service from an idealistic young activist lawyer to a globe-trotting diplomat. She cited not only her years in government, but also her personal experiences as a woman, as qualifications to be president.

She made no explicit reference to the controversies that have dogged her campaign, chief among them her use of a private email server as secretary of state, but cast herself as resilient in the face of challenges: “More than a few times, I’ve had to pick myself up and get back in the game.”

The former secretary of state offered what she hopes will be an unimpeachable rationale to restive voters for keeping the White House in Democratic hands by distilling what she would do on issues foreign and domestic, how she would build on President Obama’s legacy and why she thinks Trump is temperamentally unfit to hold the office.

“He loses his cool at the slightest provocation,” Clinton said. “When he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter. When he’s challenged in a debate. When he sees a protester at a rally. Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

Over the convention’s first three days, a parade of Clinton advocates — the president and vice president, her former primary rivals, virtually every prominent Democratic leader and a diverse array of everyday Americans — extolled her virtues and eviscerated her opponent.

But it ultimately fell to Clinton to make her own case. It was a major test for a candidate who has struggled all year to galvanize liberals, not to mention persuade independent voters.

The address closed an unexpectedly difficult chapter for Clinton. Long considered Obama’s heir apparent, she endured a persistent primary challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), a self-described democratic socialist who rose from relative obscurity to rally grass-roots liberals.

Sanders’s improbable success provided daily reminders of Clinton’s difficulties as a political performer and her vulnerabilities as a creature of the old order at a time when voters crave change.

Capping a week orchestrated to foster party unity, Clinton made a direct appeal to Sanders’s most fervent supporters who have resisted her candidacy.

“I want you to know, I’ve heard you,” she said. “Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy and passion.”

By all accounts, it seems apparent that the Democratic Convention ended up coming off far more smoothly than the Republican convention the week before. Notwithstanding the issues I noted above relating to Sanders supporters and the email debacle at the Democratic National Committee, the convention itself did an effective job both of putting forward the message that the Clinton campaign wishes to present to the public for the next three months, but also countering the message that the Trump campaign has been communicating from the beginning of his campaign. The most notable difference between the two conventions, of course, was the contrast between the positive tone that seemed to emanate from Philadelphia as compared to the rather negative, often defensive, tone of the convention in Cleveland the week before. Where Republicans were seemingly embarrassed at having selected a nominee like Donald Trump, Democrats were largely united behind Hillary Clinton in a way that Republicans were not. You didn’t see many, if any, sitting Democratic office holders or former office holders skipping the Democratic convention, for example, and you didn’t hear anyone make a speech where they told voters to ‘vote their conscience’ instead of voting for the party nominee like Ted Cruz did. And, perhaps most importantly, you didn’t hear the nominee deliver a dark, dystopian acceptance speech in which he returned to the main themes of a campaign that began with the pronouncement that ‘the American dream is dead.” In its place was the kind of positive, forward-looking speech that, as with President Obama’s speech the night before, seemed as if it could have been edited just a little bit and delivered by Ronald Reagan himself. If nothing else, the speech emphasized even more the extent of the differences between the two parties at this point, and the extent to which their roles have reversed from where they were in the 1980s and the years that followed.

The question going forward, of course, is which message resonates more with the American public. It’s long been a general rule that positive messages tend to sell better in politics than negative ones, but that hasn’t been the case lately. To a large degree, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sander thrived this past year by emphasizing what they contend is wrong with America rather than on Reaganesque rhetoric about a “shining city on a hill” and the idea of our country’s best days being ahead of it. To listen to Donald Trump, for example, one would be led to believe that unless we elect this one man to the Presidency, then our future is largely doomed. Many of Trump’s fellow Republicans have thrived on similar messages in recent years as they spend more time attacking President Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill than discussing exactly what they would do to change the direction of the country. For many reasons having to do with everything from the state of the economy and the fact that many Americans feel displaced in a changing economy where traditional jobs are not nearly as abundant as they used to be to the fact that we live in a media culture that obsesses over bad news and makes it seems as though isolated problems like increased crime in a particular area are a nationwide problem, Donald Trump has succeeded in no small part because a lot of Americans are afraid that they’ve lost the America they once knew. When you reach that point, listening to the voice of a demagogue promising simplistic answers to complex questions becomes quite easy. This is potentially a problem for the Clinton campaign going forward.

The question, of course, is what impact all of this is going to have on the race for President in general and the polls in particular. As early as Sunday, it was apparent that Donald Trump had received somewhat of a bounce out of his convention notwithstanding the problems it faced and some polling released since then has confirmed that fact. Four polls taken at least in part after the Republican convention — from Gravis, CBS News, CNN/ORC, and The Los Angeles Times — showed Trump with a lead of some kind, with the L.A. Times poll showing Trump with the largest lead of all at seven points. All of this leaves Trump (45. 6%) with a 0.9 point lead in the RealClearPolitics national average over Clinton (44.7%) in a head-to-head matchup and a .2 point lead in a four-way matchup that gives also puts Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 7.2% and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 3.0%. We’ll find out what impact the Democratic Convention has had on the race over the coming week or so, as well from the polling at the state level, but as many observers have noted if Hillary Clinton doesn’t find herself back in the lead when the dust settles, then this is going to be a tough race on both sides.

If you missed Clinton’s speech, you can read the full speech and watch the video here:

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. EddieInCA says:

    Overall theme of DNC convention: “Trump? Really? Bring it!!”

  2. KM says:

    My Republican-leaning grandmother was impressed by Hillary’s speech. “She sounds good. When did she get good?” The facts are she hasn’t really changed in her competency or tone; it was the RNC that gave it’s 3rd degree burns in that dumpster fire last week.

    We like to think of ourselves as an optimistic people. That’s why “City Upon a Hill” struck a chord with the public; we want to be seen as a place of hope, progress and prosperity. The entire concept of the American Dream is one of can-do spirit and we-will-overcome to achieve great things. Trump and his ilk act like the world is ending while crying the Dream is dead. As much as it appeals to some, it’s repellent to most on a deeply subconscious level. It’s simply not who we are. We may be mad as hell but we still believe WE can fix it. Trump literally said only he could; Hillary said any and all of us could.

    Anger burns out. Hope is fragile but endures. If she keeps positive and on-message, she’ll pick up more disaffected R’s then lose angry D’s.

  3. bookdragon says:

    I loved this night and her speech. She is not a natural at speaking and the Dems have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to orators, so I didn’t expect her match the folks who lit up the room for the last few nights. But somehow, despite the careful over-practiced delivery, esp at the outset, it really worked and in places even soared.

    Also, I generally hate any focus on what she’s wearing, but I choked up at seeing a woman come out to accept my party’s the nomination for POTUS wearing Suffragette white.

  4. Moosebreath says:

    @KM:

    “The facts are she hasn’t really changed in her competency or tone; it was the RNC that gave it’s 3rd degree burns in that dumpster fire last week.”

    And lots of Republicans noticed. My favorite was John Podhoretz:

    “Take about five paragraphs out of that Obama speech and it could have been a Reagan speech. Trust me. I know.”

    Second place was talk show host Steve Deace:

    “So most of conservative media and the GOP spent the week rooting for Russia, and now the Democrats get to rally around the flag.

    Dreadful.”

  5. Guarneri says:

    I see. So don’t worry, be happy.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-29/gdp-shocker-us-economy-grew-only-12-second-quarter-q1-revised-08

    At least Obama got to talk about himself. And the speech was so good Bill got some shut eye time.

  6. JKB says:

    “as a retired general, John Allen, put it. Democrats in the convention hall broke out into a booming, lengthy chant of “U.S.A., U.S.A.!””

    That seems very militaristic and nationalist. I thought those were bad, especially in relation to an authoritarian politician with a history of considering herself above the law (and shown to be by party faithful in government positions) leading a party promoting socialism of the German pattern, compulsory economy through increasing interventionism in the business and economic areas?

    The best was when she cribbed off Willie Sutton with her explanation of going after Wall Street, corporations, and the super rich because of not “resentment, but “that’s where the money is”.

  7. Hal_10000 says:

    Best line of the night: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons”

    This is basically my feeling about Trump. I don’t trust him. Either he’s a raging fool or he’s acting like one; the difference is academic. I disagree with Clinton on almost everything and hope that the GOP keeps Congress to counter her. But she’s sane; Trump is not.

    (And of course, Trump couldn’t resist a tweetstorm response. One imagines his staff piling on him to keep him away from his phone.)

  8. Grumpy Realist says:

    @Guarneri: zerohedge is well known as being a place that spits out stuff Russia finds useful to push on Americans.

    So you, like Trump, are buying into Vlad’s view.

    Figures.

  9. M. Bouffant says:

    @Guarneri: I love this “Obama’s always saying I” load of crap. He’s been the President for eight yrs. Of course he’s going to talk about it.

    Meanwhile, Trump can only speak of himself, & likes to do so the third person, for extra idiocy.

  10. Tony W says:

    Going in I identified with those who held signs saying “My heart belongs to Bernie but my vote belongs to Hillary”

    Coming out I am much more enthusiastic and on board with Ms. Clinton as a candidate – particularly when viewed against the trash put forth by the opposition.

    That said, Democrats remain terrible at messaging. I know it’s harder to build something than to tear something down but Hillary Clinton has too much allowed herself to be defined by her opposition. People who heard her actually speak, myself included, were reminded of a very reasonable and intelligent person who has been caricatured by the Right – often in very unfair ways.

    I was pleased to get a chance to hear directly from the candidate, and am happy we have a sane (and winnable) option in November.

  11. steve s says:

    Reagan said “I” a lot too, he just ended it with “Don’t recall that illegal unconstitutional shit what I did”

  12. al-Alameda says:

    @Guarneri:

    I see. So don’t worry, be happy.

    Not one to nitpick as conservatives are wont to do, but , it appears that about every 7 words you mention yourself.

  13. steve s says:

    we already knew conservatives couldn’t read thermometers, now we know they can’t even count.

  14. MarkedMan says:

    Those who know me from these blog comments know that I am a full throated Hillary supporter (well, as full throated as someone who overanalyzes everything to death can get). The Hillary I see is a wonk and a bit boring when it comes to the “rally the troops” phase, but by god she can grind the details until everyone else in the room throws up their hands and says to themselves, “geez, let’s just let her do the work”. She is so far from the James Joyner, Andrew Sullivan Evil Ice Queen that has no moral compass and no real values” that I can’t even begin to fathom how they got there. She has literally fought her whole life for the same half dozen issues, issues that don’t have a lot of money or votes behind them, and yet James and Andrew view her as completely transactional in all her efforts. Although, on the other hand, I do see her as almost preternaturally calculating. She really does evaluate every public move to see whether she is maximizing or hurting her causes.

    FWIW, Ezra Klein has a really good column on exactly this dichotomy. Why is it that those who know her and work with and for her are fiercely loyal and admiring, while those who only know here through the TV camera and reporters pen are overwhelmingly skeptical? Here’s a taste, but the article is worth a view in the entirety. It’s not a fluff piece, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

    And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.

    Obama administration officials, up to and including the president, badly want to see her win — there is something in the way she acted after the election, in the soldier she became and the colleague she showed herself to be, that has curdled the pride they felt in winning the 2008 primary into something close to guilt.

    This is the Gap I set out to understand. While reporting this story, I spoke to dozens of people who have worked with Clinton in every stage of her career, going back to her time in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. Every single one acknowledged its existence. Many were frustrated and confused by it.

  15. MarkedMan says:

    Just another quote from the Ezra Klein Article (which I forgot to link to link to above)

    Laurie Rubiner, who served as Clinton’s legislative director from 2005 to 2008, recalls being asked to block out two hours on the calendar for “card-table time.” Rubiner had just started in Clinton’s office six weeks before, and she had no idea what card-table time was, but when the boss wants something put on the calendar, you do it.

    When the appointed day arrived, Clinton had laid out two card tables alongside two huge suitcases. She opened the suitcases, and they were stuffed with newspaper clippings, position papers, random scraps of paper. Seeing the befuddled look on Rubiner’s face, Clinton asked, “Did anyone tell you what we’re doing here?”

    It turned out that Clinton, in her travels, stuffed notes from her conversations and her reading into suitcases, and every few months she dumped the stray paper on the floor of her Senate office and picked through it with her staff. The card tables were for categorization: scraps of paper related to the environment went here, crumpled clippings related to military families there. These notes, Rubiner recalls, really did lead to legislation. Clinton took seriously the things she was told, the things she read, the things she saw. She made her team follow up.

    Personally I think Clinton’s greatest flaw is a mirror image of her husband’s greatest asset (when it comes to electibility): she looks at every issue and says to herself “What are the laws and policies that can move the needle on this” while Bill and every other charismatic politician says “What is the affectation and words that will advantage me the most”. (Unlike many other politicians Bill then goes on to start thinking about those laws and policies. But that’s second.)

  16. MarkedMan says:

    OK, a couple more. First, Klein’s article starts off as almost hagiograhpy, then goes into a (fair) round of “on the other hand”. But towards the end, he has a great quote from Hillary herself:

    A lot of governing is the slow, hard boring of hard boards,” she says. “I don’t think there’s anything sexy, exciting, or headline-grabbing about it. I think it is getting up every day, building the relationships, finding whatever sliver of common ground you can occupy, never, ever giving up in continuing to reach out even to people who are sworn political partisan adversaries

    Here’s a real life and personal example. My wife used to work for Planned Parenthood for fundraising (yeah, tell me about how Muslims rather than Catholics or Evangelicals are the religious group we most worry might kill a member of our family. She worked in the same building as the health center where they did abortions.) There was big annual event and a half a dozen politicians where there, including Hillary who was our Senator at the time. A young woman activist was there and had reached out several days before to see if she could get five minutes with the Senator to pitch her plan. She was told Hillary had a lot to get done there but she would make sure she got to her. And Clinton came in and worked the room. Meeted and greeted everyone she needed to but then started to corner our local congressman – “what about this bill? and this one? and the next? Have you reached out to so-and-so?”, “How can I help? Should I call such and such?” But she still made the five minutes for that young activist, gave her full attention and then laid out what she felt the activist could do and how that would allow Hillary to help her. Crisp clean no-nonsense. The activist is a fan for life, but another person might have taken it as brusqueness and would have been happier with a brush off.

  17. i thinks. H got no chance, T with huge bugget and brain of an bussicess with the the lead
    hotmail iniciar sesion

  18. rachel says:

    @lucky patcher: It looks kind of like English… Are the borogroves all mimsy where you are?