Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Should Hillary go for the Macy’s walk again?
WE’VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
There’s a great comment over at Room Eight on a post on why New York’s political leaders aren’t pushing hard for the convention. The main post is good, covering ground I’ve already discussed, but I love the comment the poster added:
You can see why Hillary might want it here, even if she’s reluctant to cheer too hard for nyc to get it. Remember that night in 1992 when Bill Clinton went to the Garden to make his big appearance, and he, Hillary and young Chelsea walked hand in hand through the closed lower level of Macy’s to get to the Garden. It was a great visual. You think they wouldn’t like to relive that scene fourteen years later? Bill, Hillary and the now grown Chelsea walking hand in hand through Macy’s to the Garden, as Fleetwood Mac plays “don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” Then they arrive across the street from the Garden, Bill and Chelsea kiss Hillary and she leaves them and walks alone into the Garden and onto the stage to accept the nomination. Deja vu all over again.
I was on the floor of the Garden when the Clinton’s did their televised walk, and it was an amazing scene. After Clinton’s ‘issues’ during the primary campaign, it was done partly, or even mainly, to highlight Chelsea, since polling showed that a large part of the population didn’t even know the Clintons had a child, but it was also just an amazing way to bring in the candidate. Doing it again would drive the convention crowd absolutely wild. Something worth considering by the Clinton campaign as they think about where they really want the convention to be. (Then again, if you ask John Edwards where he would like the convention, you wonder if New Orleans shouldn’t try to get back into this thing).
Update: Turns out the walk in 1992 was on Wednesday night, not for his speech (on Thursday), but to, in effect, “accept” the nomination, after the voting on Wednesday. Also, the idea was not original, but was also done by Kennedy in Los Angeles in 1960. I added a nice picture of the ’92 convention floor.
Posted by Matt at 10:35 PM 
Although, I must add, I don’t think Hillary is the shoe-in winner of the Democratic nomination, and Obama might not be either; I personally wouldn’t be surprised to see John Edwards moving up to be the major contender as this election draws closer.
Hillary won’t make it through the Democratic primary, so why is she even being discussed?
Let’s seal the deal with Denver and get on with the party!
I don’t think you need people to remember an event like that for it to work. Once the media starts showing old clips and talking it up, it will take off from there. Playing up traditions like that does have a positive effect, people feel they are part of something special.
It doesn’t matter if Dems don’t like Hillary. Once she’s the nominee, they’ll have no other choice because they certainly aren’t going to vote Republican.
Unfortunately, I think Hillary has got the inside track to the nomination. She’s been gathering future support/favors for some time now.
Both Obama and Edwards are highly unqualified to be presidents. They are/were both senators and haven’t even spent much time there.
The only way any Senator is going to be elected president is if they face another Senator. It’s been a long time since a Senator has been elected without having other experience, not since 1960. People don’t trust congressmen. Dems would be better off looking for a popular governor, like Richardson.
I don’t think the Denver convention should be looked at as an event for only 2008. It would give a broader effect of exposing the west to democratic ideals, focus attention here that could have reprecussions for some time after. Dems shouldn’t come here touting a liberal agenda, rather they should be open to portraying a more moderate view if they want to have the maximum effect on voters.
DenverDan,
I agree that a governor like Richardson would do better than a senator.
Not so sure I agree with you when you say Edwards is highly unqualified, but don’t say the same for Hillary. As of today, they have the same exact amount of time in an elected office under their belts. Unless you were counting 8 years as “First Lady”? :/
In any event, who knows who we’ll wind up with.
Could be Bill Richardson/Wes Clark for all we know! 🙂
Here’s a prediction that will come about: Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic Nominee by a great majority. This has been well planned and orchestrated. She will likely win the Presidential Election becoming the first woman President in the history of the United States.
Hillary is by far the strongest Democrate out there. All of the news sources are seeing staggering poll numbers in such an early race for 08, unheard of numbers. It will be very tough for any inexperienced Democrate to take her on.
Having been in the White House for 8 years as First Lady with a very successful Presidency of her Husband Bill with respect to the economy and foregin affairs which are to of the most important issues to Americans. To add to the Clinton’s legacy, she was re-elected twice as Senator of New York.
With Bill Clinton campaigning for the former first lady, this will definitely create a domino effect.
And Bill Clinton is no stranger to raising money and rallying the people. In fact, he is well known for his strong ability to relate to people.
And I truly believe that America is very restful after these past 8 years and want to get a different perspective all together electing our first woman President of the United States, as evidence that America wants change is the recent party major change both in Congress and the Sentate.