In your language

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Ap
La Jornada Maya

Traditionally, Hillary Clinton has not been as good a communicator as her husband, former President Bill Clinton, or many of her contemporaries. In the primaries, she rarely fired up audiences, as did her rival Bernie Sanders. She has often came across as being totally scripted and artificial in her tone and language.

Her untrustworthy numbers remain high after forty years in public life and ten years campaigning for the presidency. She continues to be perceived by many as the lesser of two evils (when compared with Donald Trump) rather than as a positive force and trustworthy leader capable of empathizing with voters.

While this has been a challenge, the fact remains that she did win the Democratic primaries and was crowned the Party's presidential candidate on July 28th.

To claim the Presidency, Clinton now needs to win over disaffected Sanders voters who still have not warmed to her. She needs them to campaign for her with the same zeal they showed for Sanders.

She needs to win over moderate Republicans opposed to a Trump presidency. She needs for them to come out on Election Day to support her rather than stay at home in protest.

Finally, she needs the votes of the US working class who may find some appeal in Trump´s arguments that trade deals have cost them millions of well paying jobs and left them with little hope for better days. The rust belt, especially rich in swing votes for the Electoral College, are up for grabs this year.

As noted above, Clinton has not always connected well with voters. Say what you will about Trump – he has a simple message that appeals to voters looking for simple solutions to their malaise. His campaign slogan – Make America Great Again – paints a clear picture with four simple words.

He speaks in sound bites that make headlines, while Clinton has often lumbered on with complex policy messages that are not quite catchy in this age of Twitter communications.

Politics is communications, and the Democratic convention was rich in political communication.

Michelle Obama made an excellent speech at the convention. She told personal stories about her family, and connected.

Former President Bill Clinton did what all great orators do - he spoke about Hillary the person in ways she has never been comfortable doing.

President Obama's speech hit it out of the park. He set the bar high for Clinton, and, undoubtedly, for politicians for many years to come.

Clinton herself performed beyond expectations. She reached out confidently to Sanders and his supporters, letting them know their concerns will be front and center in her campaign. She set out a positive vision that incorporated many of Sanders's proposals that had the hall on its feet.

She spoke about her career and about her life experiences in a way that she has rarely done. She set out the real differences between Donald Trump and herself, noting that the party of Reagan has gone from "Morning in America" to "Midnight in America".

She reached out to all voters seeking to unite them in common cause. Her message was positive and inclusive, her language strong, and her delivery very good. She appealed to the emotions of the audience, and they responded in kind.

She spoke to the working class who have struggled in the new economy, setting out a path of hope.

Hope rather than despair, unity in diversity, and faith in the future were the keynotes of her vision.

She shared a sense of herself, something missing in most of her speeches.

Poet Maya Angelou once said, "people will forget what you said, they will forget what you did, but they will never forget how you made them feel".

Communications must reveal who the speaker is and strike at the soul of the audience to be effective.

Did Clinton achieve this state of connection at the convention? Time will tell.

Her speech was good, and that is a positive start.

For the sake of her campaign, she will have to continue connecting.

That is her challenge for the next three months.

Mérida, Yucatán
Martes 2 de agosto, 2016