Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Why Do Losers Make Great Speakers?

By Derek Thompson 

Al Gore’s speech last night in Denver was the opposite of his failed 2000 presidential campaign—funny, fresh, even a little inspiring. John Kerry’s speech the night before was quotable and downright side-splitting compared with his wooden self in 2004. And Hillary Clinton’s speech on Tuesday? The sometimes chilly candidate was praised for crushing at the convention center.

Why do we love speeches by candidates who lost? Do we lower the bar out of pity? Or do they really jump higher?

It probably has more to do with the bar. Presidential candidates have to be unflappable but human, talented but humble, transcendent but relatable. But if you lost an election, there’s no such requirement. That’s why Hillary got to talk about the "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits." Al Gore mocked his own narrow loss. Even Kerry snuck in a line about McCain "being for it before he was against" certain policies.

But self-deprecation isn’t why their speeches succeeded. It’s because they transcended the criticisms that dogged them throughout their campaigns. Hillary seemed more emotive and put her legacy in the context of women’s rights and civil rights. Kerry looked comfortable and aggressive, though he was neither in 2004. And Gore flashed the same hip wonkiness he’s rocked for years—that is, the years after 2000.

If there’s a lesson here, it’s not that losing makes you charismatic. It’s that running for president makes you stiff. Message control is paramount to modern campaigns, but it’s also a candidate’s straitjacket hemmed in by voter interests, poll-tested buzz words, and obligatory nods to patriotism and family. In 2004, Kerry played the military card with painful stiltedness, saluting the audience, "reporting for duty," and yammering about Old Glory. In 2008, Kerry played the consummate Obama advocate, mixing direct attacks on John McCain with flairs of humor that electrified the convention center.

Sen. Clinton slouched off the shackles of candidacy even faster. Often criticized for her coldness on the stump, she gave a generous concession speech in June that drew raves. In Denver, she summed up a central issue—the moral smallness of Hillary-first Democrats like PUMA—better than anyone "I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me?" she asked. "Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids?" It was the perfect question, balancing common sense with sentimentality. If she had learned to master that combo eight months ago, Thursday might have represented a different Democratic first.

Can the RBC Really Reinstate All of Florida's Delegates?

The Associated Press reported that the Rules and Bylaws Committee cannot fully restore the delegates who were stripped from Michigan and Florida at its meeting, since party rules require a reduction of at least 50 percent since the two states held their primaries early. The report cites a memo sent out by DNC lawyers last night.

But on a conference call today, Clinton adviser and RBC member Tina Flournoy said that’s an "incorrect reading" of the memo. It merely presented arguments that could be made before the RBC, she said, which the committee will then have to evaluate. In other words, the Clinton campaign can still get 100 percent of the delegations seated.

Who’s right?

In strictly technical terms, Clinton’s people are. The memo, which summarizes challenges filed in Florida and Michigan to reinstate part or all of the state’s delegations, goes out of its way not to endorse one stance or another. (Michigan’s Democratic Party requested that all of the state’s delegates be reinstated; Florida DNC member Jon Ausman asked for 50 percent of Florida’s pledged delegates and all of its superdelegates to be counted.) As if to reiterate the memo’s toothlessness, the DNC just sent out a statement calling it an "intentionally neutral" analysis that "does not make specific recommendations."

But in a few key parts, the memo points out how the RBC would basically have to violate DNC rules in order to reinstate more than half the delegations. Here are some examples:

"[I]t seems clear that while the RBC could revoke its additional sanctions, leaving in place the automatic sanctions of Rule 20(C)(1), it does not have authority to reverse or prevent the imposition of those automatic sanctions."—Michigan challenge, Page 3

"If the RBC decides to go as far as it legally can in granting the MDP Challenge, it would revoke the additional December 2007 sanctions and leave in place a 50% automatic reduction in pledged delegates."—Michigan challenge, Page 6

"The legally more defensible view seems to be that the RBC had authority, in its discretion, to impose the additional sanction that it did impose in August 2007, but by the same token, that the RBC now has discretion to revoke those additional sanctions, thereby leaving in effect the automatic sanction of Rule 20(C)(1), i.e., a 50% reduction in pledged delegates."—Florida challenge, Page 6

In other words, the RBC could reinstate all of Michigan or Florida’s delegates (although only the Michigan challenge calls for full reinstatement), but that would violate its own rules. Clinton supporters will likely argue that the RBC has the power to overrule itself. As the memo puts it, the committee "is vested with broad authority … to ‘determine and resolve questions concerning the seating of delegates and alternates to the Convention.' " But it also points out that the committee's power is limited to making states comply with party rules. If there's a resolution to seat the full delegations, that will go to the Credentials Committee in late June, which would then throw it to the convention floor in August.

What does this all mean? That we’re in for a really dull RBC meeting. If the Clinton camp can’t get more than 50 percent of the delegations reinstated, they have no hope of turning the tables on Obama. (Even if they could get all of Michigan and Florida’s delegates to count, it would be virtually impossible to catch up among pledged delegates.) Both camps seem to expect mayhem—Clinton supporters are planning protests, while Obama has urged supporters not to stir things up. But chances are the scene outside the building will be a lot more dramatic than inside.

The Compromise Myth

When it comes to seating Florida’s delegation, the DNC keeps saying it’s going to come to a compromise that’s acceptable to both campaigns. “We all agree that whatever the solution, it must have the support of both campaigns,” said Howard Dean and Florida Democratic Chairwoman Karen Thurman in a joint statement today. But is there really a scenario on which both campaigns are going to agree?

I doubt it. The campaigns’ stances are simple. Everyone says they want the delegations to be seated. But no one agrees on what that means—how many delegates each candidate will get, whether to seat superdelegates but not pledged delegates, or whether to treat Florida and Michigan equally. (Obama's absence from the Michigan ballot complicates things.) From Obama’s perspective, he won’t accept any scenario in which the Florida and Michigan delegations affect the race. Likewise, the Clinton campaign won’t accept any scenario in which they don’t. That means the only way they’ll come to a mutually acceptable compromise is if Obama’s delegate lead is wide enough that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations won’t help Hillary catch up. In other words, if Obama has his way, the delegations will only get seated as long as they don’t matter. But then that would tick Hillary off, taking the negotiations back to square one.

The DNC seems to think it can find a solution without taking sides. I’m still not sure that’s possible. No one said Howard Dean’s job was easy.