Maya Angelou said, "There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside of you." Hillary Clinton is now suffering from exactly that malady and it was the cause of her campaign's failure.
Mark Penn interpreted that his polling suggested that Hillary should avoid the soft stuff and stay on issues. And Hillary thought she knew all she needed to come up with the stories in her life that she told on her stump speeches. They were both wrong.
Minutes before the Philly debate, I had a chance to chat with Hillary's communication director, Howard Wolfson.
I asked him whether Hillary had ever identified a list of stories, from her life, to use on the campaign trail.
Wolfson didn't say yes, and replied that she did her own stuff along those lines, that a team helped prep her before debates, but they didn't like to get too specific. He wasn't really anwering my exact question. I left with the impression that he didn't get what I was asking and that Hillary hadn't done this kind of work in preparation. It's not surprising. A lot of candidates think, because they've given hundreds or thousands of stump speeches, that they know all they need to know about how to talk about themselves. NOT!
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, we learn that one reason Hillary held off on getting personal, and letting out her softer side was that Mark Penn had repeatedly argued against Hillary manifesting her soft side;
"Before her January 2007 debut as a candidate, the senator's team wrangled over how to portray her. Ms. Solis Doyle, communications director Howard Wolfson, media strategist Mandy Grunwald, policy chief Neera Tanden and senior strategist Harold Ickes wanted to promote her as a candidate of change -- the first woman president -- her Washington years notwithstanding. They also wanted to counter the candidate's high negative ratings among the general population by revealing the witty, engaging woman they knew.
Mr. Penn, by contrast, believed that voters would need to perceive Sen. Clinton as tough and seasoned enough to be the first female commander in chief. Emphasizing her gender too much, he argued, would undercut that. He also said Sen. Clinton would look weak if she apologized for her 2002 war vote, though it was especially unpopular in Iowa.
When one insider pleaded during meetings in 2007 to humanize the candidate, witnesses say Mr. Penn responded: "Being human is overrated." His polls, he said, showed "soft stuff" -- talking about Sen. Clinton's mother, for example -- had no effect. Her early attacks on Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had moved numbers in her favor. "People don't care if you have a beer with the guys after work, or whether you're warm and fuzzy about your mother," Mr. Penn argued -- they care about issues like health care."
There were a number of very specific moments, in the debates, where, rather than acting tough, or spouting numbers or showing off knowledge on an issue Hillary would have been far more effective telling a personal life story as an example of an issue.
Yes, Hillary talked about her parents and grandparents. Yes she talked about individuals who were victims of policies she wanted to change. Those stories are not the same. They don't reach people's hearts the same.
At one point, in the February 21st debate, Hillary was asked, "Describe the moment in your life when you were tested the most." Hillary's handlers were so happy with her response that Terry McAuliffe sent out an email to her mailing list, saying,
Now, I coach candidates on how to give stump speeches-- how to weave the issues they are focusing upon with the stories in their lives. And the fact that the Clinton Campaign uses this response shows just how badly her advisors have failed in understanding what wins elections.
The question was perfect, a gift for a well prepared candidate. But Hillary didn't answer it. She ignored it clearly not having a clue that this was her shot at proving herself, at SHOWING her experience. Instead, she tried to TELL who she is. She told a story that demonstrated who she is and what she thought. The question gave her an opportunity to really showcase her experience, to SHOW her inner strength, her character under fire.
Frankly, it's not a question you just dredge up an answer to. You have to have thought it through, honed and fined tuned your understanding of the actual challenging experience-- how you were tested, the dynamics, the pressure put upon you, and then, how you stood up to and overcame those challenges.
Any candidate I'd have coached would have have been ready and eager to answer that question head on. An honest, truthful, head-on answer to that question could have been the home run that Hillary was looking for. Instead, she went for the walk, lecturing about her values rather than showing and illustrating them via a story-- a real story which showed her facing a real challenge, actually being tested.
I've written about this in at least two previous articles:
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
BS - Se lost because she ran a nasty Rovian style campaign
It had nothing to do with Heart Stories
She lost me last fall when she arrogantly insisted that she would continue to take Lobbyist money 'because THEY are people too" - they aren't people, they are vermin sent in to cut the throat of the Democratic Process.
She further lost me when she made her Faustian Deals with Mellon-Scrape and Murdick and buddied up the the very people and accused her of Murder (among other things) and that I spent the 90's defending her and Bill against.
She lost me more when she lied, triangulated, and attacked during this process showing no grace, class, integrity, rational math skills and utter lack of judgement and overtly Supported McCain over Obama on several occaisions.
And she completely lost any respect I might have had left this week when, still in a parallel univers of denial, she attempted to steal an historic moment from Obama who had won.
She showed her judgement, grasp os a situation and flexibility to be about as good as that of Bush.
Crap on your 'Heart Stories'
I was an Edwards Supporter. When he dropped out , Obama was the only choice left.
Obama isn't perfect, but he is the only shot we have at keeping what's left of Democracy and the Constitution
by
Phred42 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM
that she never had much of a shot at you ever. This article is about the undecideds. I think most of the people who supported Edwards were more politically savvy and further left leaning.
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3923 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 10:46:10 AM
The support for Hillary, both within and outside political, is extraordinary - after all, her only substantive political credential is her term as junior senator in a secure seat she was essentially given. Her voting record has been unexeptional, and she failed abysmally on the very few occasions when true vision. leadership and courage were called for.
Why the support? I can only suppose it is because people, given the slightest encouragement, believe what they want to believe. Hillary's one heartfelt story - to be the person at the helm, regardless - has always been evident. If you listen to what she says you will hear it in everything she says - you just need to listen instead of project.
Of course you could look at recent events and see her true nature clearly written in them - or you could choose to believe she is indomitable fighter for your cause.
by
cam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 11:27:26 AM
rob,, I'd say there are 2 parts. Stories and talking about values that is important and Hilary didn't do either. Since values are felt body experiences, the best way to express and share them is through the arts... and story telling is one of those ways.
here's a link to a post I did on Terry McAuliffe. I interviewed him about progressive values and he did a terrible job of talking about them. I placed the video interview online and actually was contacted by him requesting I remove the video which I didn't do.
btw she lost for one very simple reason: She is NOT a "likeable" person and voters don't vote for people they don't like. Her supporters repeatedly tried to spin that fact by saying things like: "sure she's a bitch but that means she's a scrappy fighter and will get the job done". They should have just thrown in the towel at that point...
by
BenMarbleMD (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 203 diaries, 297 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM
I don't care much for these straight from the heart stories
and Obama has not used many of these in his campaign either; but he won nevertheless, so that must not be so important.
HC lost because she is widely disliked and could not change this negative image. Discussing HC's defeat with friends, we came up with similar views--we see her as an unprincipled opportunistic person who has sacrificed her pride and dignity and has accepted repeated public humiliation from her philandering husband for the sake of her political ambitions.
she is certainly resilient, but she is unable to stick to principles and vision, because she has none. She is a pathologic panderer--she pandered to her husband first, then to the Bushiites when she supported the war and threatened to annihilate Iran, she pandered to the NRA, to racist voters, etc. Panderers have not fared too well as of late--look at Mitt Romney.
She stooped to conquer and she went as low as one can go with her slash and burn campaign; but it was all in vain--she won't get what she wanted but the fact that she demeaned herself in the process will stick forever. Or as Jay Leno said, she is like many women in Washington who slept with Bill for nothing.
All in all, she has been had, but she allowed it to happen by compromising too many times; that makes her look weak, a sidekick to strong dangerous men, and in a nutshell, a victim. Maggie Thatcher, Angela Merkel, wether you like their policies or not, are strong women with strong principles able to stand their own anywhere. Not so with Hillary Clinton--she can't even prevent Bill from meddling in her campaign and making more a mess of it, if possible. She has this albatros around her neck, she can't get rid of it; if she can't resist a toxic husband, how can we trust her to deal with the likes of Ahmadinejad, Khadafi, etc...
The world is a dangerous place; voters just don't want a victim for President.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 332 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:30:27 PM
you don't go or not go for them, you absorb them. When a movie is working, it puts the viewer in a hypnotic trance. Stump speeches can and when successful DO the same. If she'd been able to reach into her heart and remember and tell some of her heart stories, she would have been perceived as a different person. But of course, that would also have meant that she would have told Mark Penn to leave much earlier.
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3923 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:38:54 PM
Although, that would not be my personal story, I can see Hillary's problem of presenting her life experiences when she relied upon her husband's record. No one should identify so closely with a spouse, that she/he can't present a clear picture of who she/he is. If a woman is expecting to blaze trails, she must figure that out in her own mind before she hits the trail.
From the South Carolina primary forward, it was obvious that a team (Clinton Inc., people wrote) was running for office. Hillary did not know, probably can't understand now, how she would have to divorce (not legally, but in thought processes) herself from Bill and his record. Why she could not have said something like: Look, Folks. The nineties were good years. And then we got on the bridge to the 21st Century, and it had no underpinnings. It's time to reassess our situation after Bush bungling and get on with what we need to do. My early experiences as First Lady make me recognize how real issues get trivialized. But what is ahead of us now seems manageable as I look as the turnaround the Democrats have made in energizing their voters. The Senate was the best place I could have landed during the tumultuous times when the politics of fear replaced serious leadership.
by
Margaret Bassett (25 articles, 1685 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 1015 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:49:06 PM
Hillary lost because she supported the Illegal Iraq war, and this showed a serious lack of judgement. She continues to support the Illegal War, and shows no conscience over the horendous killing of Iraq civilians. She represents a continuation of bankrupt policies, as compared to Obama's desire to change to a new direction.
by
Rolland Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 2:50:10 PM
I think Hillary lost because men do not like what she represents to them. She represents feminism for many of us men and we will never vote for that especially those of us fathers who cruelly had our children ripped out of our lives by feminist politics.
Hillary can dream up all the stories she wants to, but that does not get her elected. Stories would not sway me to vote for a she-wolf.
She got beat because she is not well liked for many reasons including I think feminism.
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:20:06 PM
Terrible analysis. You're trying to read a moral into it,
but there is none. Hillary is a sociopathic liar & ruthless power-grabber who fought a filthy campaign that openly encouraged racists. But that's not why she lost. She only lost by a very small margin, after all -- so with a few tweaks, probably could have won, with no substantive changes.
The argument that she lost because "She Failed to Share Her Heart's Stories" seems absurd to me. First of all, she doesn't have a heart. She's a sociopathic monster. To hypothesize that she has a real human heart is to misunderstand her. // And, as I say, she could easily have won, had things simply broken slightly differently. If Obama's team had been organized a bit worse, or hers a bit better, it might easily have turned out differently.
Obama didn't "win" because he had better positions. The two are virtually identical twins on substance. The whole hideous campaign was waged on grounds of image. It was a battle of marketing departments, in which Hillary's came up only a bit short.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 4:37:27 PM
Rob Kall is trying to change history in this article. Hillary won the popular vote and set a new record while doing it. Eighteen million votes were cast for her--more than any candidate has ever gotten. Moreover, she set this record while being outspent two, three and sometimes four times by Obama, who still failed to win as many votes as she did. Just as remarkable, she set this record despite manipulations of the primaries by the DNC and constant media "misstatements" such as Kall's. In truth, Clinton's campaign was a phenomenal success, Had the DNC not manipulated the primaries, Clinton would have been the nominee, as the voters resoundingly wished. Upon reflection, Hillary, Bill, Chelsea and their unpaid volunteers and supporters possibly deserve a memorial for their groundbreaking achievements.
Obama won the nomination because he spent millions more than Hillary on the DNC and the delegates. Thus the DNC manipulated the primaries, even going so far as to give Obama four Michigan delegates that rightfully belonged to Hillary and penalizing Florida and Michigan for "breaking" a rule while levying no penalty whatsoever on New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina for breaking the same rule.
Make no mistake; Clinton won the nomination according to the voters; Obama won the nomination according to the delegates because he spent millions on the DNC and the delegates.
by
Patrick Knif (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 6:26:20 PM
What laughable drivel! If you go by Hillary-Math, you count
votes cast in primaries where your opponent's name wasn't even on the ballot! And of course, you ruthlessly exploit the ignorance of white racists & hillbillies, while trying to smear your rival as "Muslim."
(Full disclosure: I don't think Obama is any better -- just more skillful in his deceptions.)
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 8:12:10 PM
which it isn't, Hillary lost by the delegate count as you have stated. The delegate count is the only metric that ever counted according to the rules set by the Democratic National Committee. That points up another weakness in Hillary's campaign, if she pursued such a flawed strategy as striving to win the popular vote in a contest where the winner has more delegates. That is the "bring a knife to a gunfight" theory of contesting a result.
In reality, though, Hillary was fine with the rules while she was favored to win. It was after her post Super Tuesday string of electoral defeats that she turned the crank in the Mark Penn bullshit machine and started her sprint around the field with the goalposts over her shoulder. She couldn't sell the b.s. though, and it made her look bad to try it, so she tried to sell more b.s., creating a feedback loop that led to her final defeat.
The result? It renewed my faith in the sensibility of the electorate. Let's hope that holds up.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1174 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 8:26:08 AM
... she did tell a few. But they turned out to be lies.
She could have told us that heartfelt story about how she and Bill invested 5 million in 2000 in that "blind" trust that had investments in Big Oil and several military contractors...
then she went onto the floor of the Senate and repeated Bush's lies about iraq (without reading the NIE) and voted for the war.
and then in 2007 she had to declare it's value at 25 million. To she sold it and kept the cash... that's a heartfelt story. I wept for her. Having to give up that portfolio as it was really kicking in some sweet dividends. Poor thing. If she could have worked up some tears over that one I am sure McCain would pick her for his running mate.
I mean after all, one of the investments was with NewsCorp.
by
scott creighton (24 articles, 10 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 203 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 7:44:17 PM
I'm beginning to think Rob is infatuated with Hillary.........He always manages to muster up some promo for Hillary........I have to say she does have charismatic appeal, as long as she is not telling those heart-felt stories.........I really don't think she has many of those life experiences to talk about........
Now, if you ask her to talk about her opportunities to make money........now that's a topic she could talk your ears off about and keep you rolling on the floor laughing your ass off about them...........It's all about "shits and grins" for her and Bill, sorta like "let the good times roll"..........that's what those pot smokin hippies do..........
So, why didn't Hillary/Billary didn't take the nomination???.....because all people know she is an opportunist who will flop where ever the money flops............Her baggage was way toooooo heavy..........
I'm thinking this goes for her shot at the VP also.......I can't imagine Hill running to Bill for advice on how to out-smart Obama on every other issue............Obama would be a fool to select her as a running mate......
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:26:06 AM
She should of done this, she should of done that and she lost herself and everybody else along the way. Not that it matters.
While we're debating something that means nothing, Bilderbergers are meeting outside of DC. They're the ones who are deciding who runs things as we blow smoke rings around an illusion. No wonder they lobe-off intellectuals heads first.
Hillary - P-t-th! Obama - same.
Who among them, when faced with evidence of treason and war-crimes spoke of bringing those who committed these deeds to justice? Has anyone heard the word "impeach" come from their lips other than to deny it? "We can't because it's too close to the elections and we don't want to seem partisan", is my favorite excuse.
Since when does exposing crimes against the Constitution and humanity hurt you and not your opponent? By what measure of distorted logic does this work? "I don't want to charge them with crimes against humanity, because it will make me "look bad"?"
And people swallow this crap ...
We will hear them say, "But, we haven't got the votes" ... how can this be? When over 70% of the people want this killing stopped, how can you not have the votes? Whose votes are you talking about?
Even every one's favorite great black hope, Obama, oh, he says he'll let the chips fall where they may "once he's in office" ... how nice, how devious, you want my vote don't dangle a carrot in front of me, we've been fooled too many times before by empty promises, and this wasn't even a promise, anything could happen between now and then, you want my God-damn vote? Earn it! Do something now! Since when do you wait for a killer to get off work before you arrest him?
Get on national television and say you can't take another day of people occupying the White House who have committed crimes so horrendous as to leave a permanent stain on this country forever. That like Germany, no matter what good they as a nation may do in the future they will never erase Hitler from their history. Say something like this and you have not just my vote, but my respect.
And it is my sincere belief that if Clinton would have made that statement she'd be the nominee.
So I'm sick of these intellectual parlor games mean nothing. Spinning what has already been decided. These are not our candidates. These are candidates that were propped-up for us to distract us from what's really going on.
You want to find out what's happening? Go crash the Bilderberg meeting. Otherwise you might as well be swinging at windmills.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1436 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:58:09 AM
Not having these 2 states counted which would have won her a bunch of delegates earlier had her being an underdog after Super Tuesday rather than an Upper dog. Psychology is important, as many people like to vote for the winner, treating elections like a ball game. Her loss is somewhat like Gores loss to Bush, all the votes were not cast and/or counted, and like Gore, she won the popular vote.
Basically, in looking at the larger more important states she won where many people voted (not caucuses which are manipulated by the elite party leaders) she had Florida, CA, Ohio and PA, while Obama only had NC. These states are huge in a general election.
Obamas victory is not an overwhelming mandate here. In fact, starting from OH (primaries only, del are the states total delegates)
Del 141 OH HRC 53% W
Del 21 RI HRC 58% W
Del 126 TX HRC 51% W
Del 15 VT HRC 39% L
Del 33 MIS HRC 37% L
Del 158 PA HRC 55% W
Del 72 IND HRC 51% W
Del 115 NC HRC 42% L
Del 28 WV HRC 67% W
Del 51 KY HRC 66% W
Del 52 OR HRC 41% L
Del 16 MT HRC 41% L
Del 15 SD HRC 55% W
She won 5 of the 7 states that had 50 or more delegates, and was 3-3 in the smaller states (8-5 total). That's called momentum. She was gaining it and Obama was losing it.
Keep in mind, the Pastor Wright stuff came after Super Tuesday and after Edwards dropped out. If that came out earlier, Obama would have been toast.
This Obama win is smelling a bit to me. Karl Roves hand must be at work. I am no Hillary supporter but might have gone for Edwards.
by
pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 466 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:40:28 AM
The more I think about Mr. Kall's explanation, the more it makes me feel unconfortable.
according to him, HC did not lose because she ran a crummy campaign, used a slash and burn, egocentered strategy detrimental to her own party, supported the war, revealed her deep seated desire to see Obama bumped off, tried to stir up racist feelings in order to defeat her opponent, has a loose canon husband who would be breathing down her neck if'she was elected, and is seen as an unprincipled opportunist by a majority of voters.
These reasons are very serious, very important ones, and only one of them would be grounds for not voting for her. But Mr. Kall thinks that the key to her defeat is merely a communication mistake--she did not show her human side, did not speak from the heart, did not resort to moving narratives to reach out to her audience.
Thus, the reason why Clinton failed is reduced to a technical problem--from Mr. Kall's explanation, one can infer that if HC had received good PR advice, she would have won--despite all the many lethal negatives on her record.
I am willing to admit that emotions and irrational elements play a role in the way people vote: however, I will certainly not admit that voters base their decision only on such flimsy considerations as the one proposed by Mr. Kall, and specially in the very serious situations we have now on our hands regarding the economy and the war in Iraq.
In other words, the US is going to the dogs, many people are losing ground and suffering economically, we are slowly but surely becoming a Third World country, our Constitition has been shredded to pieces and we are facing an humiliating defeat in Iraq but you are telling us that the only thing that matters to most voters is wether HC has a heart or not?
Truly frightening prospect; you are telling us in effect that American citizens are morons. But hey, maybe you are right...:-(
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 332 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 5:35:05 AM
One More Story : Coincidental Plane-Crash Death Of JFK Jr
"Before he died in a tragic plane crash in July 1999, JFK Jr was weighing a decision to run for the Senate in New York...John watched with growing dismay as Hillary subtly insinuated herself..."
Cited from Laurence Leamer's 'Sons Of Camelot'
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 464 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 6:33:43 AM
