Yeah--
Fox, I don't know if you have a regular viewing background of the Conventions, but it has become commonplace for wives to make a presentation of their husbands at these shin digs.
Heinz' speaking is not untoward---it should be all about her husband. If she goes off on personal tangents, THAT will be interesting, and inappropriate, IMO.
Wives (and husbands, in theory) are invited to share a bit at the Conventions, and pump up the crowd for the Thursday night acceptance.
When I decry a spouse's speechmaking and policy molding--it doesn't include a few appearances, such as the Conventions, and campaigns. Its more WHAT they say. Looking forward to hear what Heinz will say...
Strange, but understandable (wives' prominent participation in conventions I mean)
Thanks Beth (I realise I could/should have just Googled it up myself, so thanks all the more)
Elizabeth Dole is apparently the standard to meet and beat, for spousal appearances. (She keeps getting referenced in reviews of other spouses' speeches)
From a summary of the 1996 Republican convention
Quote:August 14, 1996
Elizabeth Dole will throw out the tradition of speaking from the podium and walk amongst the delegates while speaking; Polls show the gap is narrowing between Bob Dole and President Clinton; Robin Dole, Bob Dole's daughter, discusses her speech and what it means for her father; Elizabeth Dole addresses the convention, relating personal stories and insights about her husband; Elizabeth Dole delivers a masterful speech, touching on several key issues; Elizabeth Dole discusses her role as potential first lady and comments on what Bob Dole can offer America; Conclusion of Senator John McCain's speech; Former Secretary of State James Baker discusses possible political strategy for Bob Dole in the next few months before the election; House Majority Leader Dick Armey discusses Mrs. Dole's speech and differences between Mrs. Dole and Mrs. Clinton; Marilyn Quayle comments on Mrs. Dole's speech and discusses advice she would give to Joanne Kemp as a potential vice president's wife; Some popular political souvenirs and toys that are selling very well at this convention
http://www.burrellesluce.com/transcripts/cbs/nrnc96.htm
Well. It appears no one here thinks Hillary should have any special billing.
Well personally, I don't care for Hi8llary's speeches and agree that Theresa will be more interesting.
You guys good at Googling though, can you pull up whether ex-first ladies have had speaking roles at conventions?
Foxfyre wrote:You guys good at Googling though, can you pull up whether ex-first ladies have had speaking roles at conventions?
Kinda - tho in context:
Republican Convention 2000
THE SECOND NIGHT: AUGUST 1, 2000
The Final Hour of the Convention
Bush Family Tribute
With a video presentation and speech from Barbara Bush, the GOP convention honors the former president.
link
Equivalent to that would be Hillary speaking at the Dem convention this year - but with a speech "to honor former president" Clinton ... Not gonna happen, I guess? <wicked grin>
Families of nominees are in a different category than party regulars.
Sheesh.
Hillary has no special standing as a Democrat to recieve posh speech times--she DOES however have special standing as a former first lady.
I expect she could be tapped to wax nostalgic on Bill--but considering the fiasco of their marriage--since there's no accounting for taste in the Dem party--she may attempt to memorialize his tenure.
Wish she'd address those criminal pardons...
Whatcha sheeshing bout, Sofia? ;-)
Went on looking, found that Nancy Reagan also speeched at the 1992 Republican Convention - that would probably be a closer equivalent to Hillary speaking at the Dem convention now ...
But then again, Nancy, too, mostly spoke in honour of her husband, which Hillary somehow will seem to have more trouble pulling off, as such ...
On the other hand, since she did become a Senator herself, she does have a slightly different position than Nancy had in 92 (or Barbara Bush in 2000 or whatever) ...
I guess there's just no complete equivalent for this circumstance in the past. Unless perhaps in Asia - Indira and Sonia Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto - but then, thats different again, its not like Clinton was shot ...
My sheesh: Minor inconvenience, worrying that someone might have mistaken what I said.
No matter.
As I have watched both Conventions since my teens, I knew who spoke. My opinion was that Hillary would be by-passing other, long-serving women if she was given the podium on her own merit as a Senator. Surely, if it is due to her marriage to a former President, I would have no qualm. But, even my qualm isn't a major qualm. Arnold just showed up on the horizon.
The parties do what they think is in their best interests.
I was never under the impression political spouses hadn't given speeches. It may have seemed so, since I was judging Hillary on her own merits, not taking into account her husband's former status. (I guess I don't identify them as married, subconsciously...)
I was kinda surprised they give speeches ... spouses, spouses of former presidents even ... But i can see how that would be so ... Still feels odd, though. Whats the wife of a former president got to do with what the party's discussing four years later? Its another of those "would never happen here" things - spouses arent even really ever covered when their politician husband/wive is still heading the list ... But then, we dont have Presidents, so I guess it would be different.
As I poke away at this at google, it seems that the people organizing the conventions can invite whoever they want. You can find speakers' lists going back many many years, and about the only thing I haven't found is a pet at the podium.
The idea is to be rousing, make people want to vote for the Prez candidates specifically and Democrats generally. So they choose whomever they think will do that best. Obama, from what I know of him, is a great choice. He's very positive, uplifting, inspiring.
In terms of wives, that's more candidate-specific. For one, wives are allowed to get away with more "look what a great guy he is" stuff than most anyone else. For another, and this is again part of the difference nimh talks about, people see it as a character issue (coff ptooey), what kind of person the candidate married, what she thinks of him. If she seems like a smart cookie, and is genuinely glowing with love and respect for her man, that translates to goodwill for the candidate.
Or if they are Elizabeth Dole, they really really outshine the candidate and make people wonder if they've got the right partner running. (tonight's lesson googling on republican analysis sites)
sozobe wrote:The idea is to be rousing, make people want to vote for the Prez candidates specifically and Democrats generally. So they choose whomever they think will do that best. Obama, from what I know of him, is a great choice. He's very positive, uplifting, inspiring.
I think there is another item at play in inviting him to speak there too. Should Kerry and Edwards win in Nov. that's 2 less Democrats in the Senate with no guarantee that their seats will be filled by Democrats. Obama is running in IL and the national exposure won't hurt him in the least (unless he really messes up! lol). In addition to the Convention being a place for the Presidential candidates to be seen it's also a good national spotlight for "up and coming" candidates for House and Senate seats in critical states.
nimh wrote:Did Barbara Bush and so on get a speaking part at the convention before their husbands were first elected? Is it usual for the first Lady-to-be to speak prominently?
(Quick mental comparative check: Blair's and Schroeder's wives are both a little controversial, tho merely in a gossipish way, and I wouldnt even know what the wives of Balkenende and Bos, Holland's main party leaders, look like. I assume Bos is married ...)
Barbara Bush isn't a Senator from New York, a very politically powerful state.
sozobe wrote:The idea is to be rousing, make people want to vote for the Prez candidates specifically and Democrats generally. So they choose whomever they think will do that best. Obama, from what I know of him, is a great choice. He's very positive, uplifting, inspiring.
In terms of wives, that's more candidate-specific. For one, wives are allowed to get away with more "look what a great guy he is" stuff than most anyone else. For another, and this is again part of the difference nimh talks about, people see it as a character issue (coff ptooey), what kind of person the candidate married, what she thinks of him. If she seems like a smart cookie, and is genuinely glowing with love and respect for her man, that translates to goodwill for the candidate.
Obama is a dim, dim light on the political stage, relative to Hillary Clinton.
I suspect that Obama is nothing more than a flash in the pan.
There was a long, very interesting article in TNR about Obama a month or two ago ... they consider him quite the political talent.
Here it is (lemme know if its for subscribers-only, I guess I could copy/paste it into a new thread, since he's running in a prolific Senate race and all):
BARACK OBAMA'S MIRACULOUS CAMPAIGN
Race Against History
