Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Bill, Hillary, and Biden
August 28, 2008
Taken together, the speeches by Bill and Hillary Clinton eventually gave Barack Obama everything he wanted from them. Their support came late, and the delay and equivocation have surely exacted a price: the sagging momentum of Obama’s campaign of late owes something to the Clintons’ ongoing grievances. Finally, though, they gave him the backing he needed.
Both of the Clintons gave outstanding, memorable speeches, and they formed two parts of a single whole. As I said yesterday, Hillary’s attack on the Bush administration and John McCain—underlining what was at stake in this election—carried sustained force and conviction. In the plainest terms, she told her supporters to vote for Obama. Up to then, many were still wavering, and some were determined to abstain or worse. For the first time, she denied them permission to do so. Nonetheless, the case she made rested on what was wrong with Bush and McCain, rather than on what was right about the Democratic nominee. She held something back.
The next night, Bill made good the deficit. People say he is still angry over the way the Obama campaign accused him of exploiting race, impugned his record as president (not as “transformative” as Ronald Reagan), and disrespected his wife (failing even to consult her on the vice-presidential nomination). If those really are his feelings, he disguised them brilliantly. There was no trace of recrimination, and his finely crafted speech dwelt almost exclusively on Obama’s fitness for office. In one surprising stroke, he even congratulated Obama on his choice of Joe Biden as running-mate—a consolation prize Hillary seems to have wanted. Obama’s first big decision, Bill said, was to nominate his vice-president, “and he hit it out of the park.” That was extraordinary.
These excellent performances do somewhat diminish the new team. Biden’s speech, following quickly after Bill’s, was lame by comparison. The delivery was faltering, and the substance routine. Yes, Biden showed he has the common touch, which many find lacking in Obama—but if the electorate sees Barack as aloof and cerebral, choosing a likeable deputy does not put that right. And the fact that the Clintons so dominated the first three days of the convention, making it their show as much as Obama’s, was less than ideal.
Still, unless they swerve again over the coming weeks, the Clintons cannot be accused of letting the party down. This serves their interests, of course: it keeps alive Hillary’s hopes of another run at the presidency should Obama lose in November, and it restores Bill’s own standing in the party. Whatever their motives, however, and despite the fact that the Clintons are a hard act to follow, Obama must be pleased. They most likely succeeded, after all, in uniting the party around him. Better late than never.
They gave him a bear’s hug. Biden’s performance paled in comparison, and so will Obama’s. Excellent tactics: you wanted our support, you got it, but voters will notice our greater suitability for the job.
Now all that remains is for Obama to falter and lose the election. He jumped the gun, with only two years’ senate experience wanted to be president. He will never get that opportunity again. What a phantasmagoria these past months have been. But all will be well when the charlatan Obama is forced off the stage.
Posted by: RCS | August 28th, 2008 at 8:08 am | Report this commentFirstly, let us admit that each of the main speakers, Clinton, Kerry and Biden had a different message and purpose. Each politician succeeded in getting through that message.
The most impressive speaker of the night was John Kerry. His speech was profoundly more visceral, aggressive and passionate than expected. It attacked McCain’s principles, legislative record and political demagoguery. He perfectly exemplified McCain as the pretentious politician he is, not the renegade independent he claims to be.
To win, this message is what Obama must hammer into the brains of the American people. Precisely what John Kerry articulated tonight and with as much, if not more, vigour.
Additionally, tonight’s speeches really set the bar high for McCain’s vice-presidential choice. Biden’s an extremely experienced legislator and masterful elocutionist. Unless McCain picks a formidable vice-presidential nominee, the American public will be swayed in the vice-presidential debates.
Posted by: Danny | August 28th, 2008 at 8:45 am | Report this comment“But all will be well when the charlatan Obama is forced off the stage.” Earth to RCS, the reality follows from Danny:
“It [Kerry’s speech] attacked McCain’s principles, legislative record and political demagoguery.”
Senator Obama is an outstanding individual by any measure, Senator McCain is not. Senator McCain is older, therefore has more experience, a tautology. But that experience has led him to have truly lunatic ideas on virtually any topic, not least on the use and abuse of the USA military and on virtually all of the equally lunatic Bush Administration policies and actions.
One classic snippet of Senator McCain’s unsavory mixture of the worst of fratboyism and irresponsibility is his “joke” before some audience about bombing Iran. His jokey use of the Beach Boys’ song Barbara Ann in that regard says it all. Could you imagine the outcry if Senator Obama made such a statement? Senator McCain has been granted the oft-mentioned “free pass” by the press - and by the Democrats - on these comments. He should be excoriated for them.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | August 28th, 2008 at 9:15 am | Report this commentWendell,
McCain has a great sense of humour. After the North Carolina primary he thanked his supporters — “we’ve waited for this eight years, but what’s eight years between friends?!”
McCain not an excellent individual? That is the greatest joke! Notice that even leading Democrats, like the Clintons, could only say good words about him. They are againt his policies, they do not oppose him personally. Senator McCain is a man of outstanding character. America deserves such a president. I hope Bush has not ruined his chances a second time. My gut feeling is he has not. The more Americans grow to know Obama, the less sure they will be of who he is. Please do not confound your NeoLib ideology with the question marks hanging over Obama’s personal suitability for the job.
Posted by: RCS | August 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am | Report this commentWhat is the story on the Clintons’ Debt recovery negotiations with the DNC and the Obama fundraisers? What is the real story behind Hillary “generously” turning her fundraisers towards Obama? Sounds phoney.
Posted by: wcm | August 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am | Report this commentThis may be wishful thinking, but I predict that Barack Obama will make a speech tonight that will put all the previous ones put together into the shade (except perhaps Michelle’s, but I am really giving her the benefit of the doubt since I didn’t watch her speak).
The reality is that there was nothing memorable in any of the other speeches (I didn’t watch Kerry’s either, but I am on very safe ground here.) Therefore, Obama has a pretty low bar to contend with.
However, the expectations for Obama’s speech are so high that unless he gives another Gettysburg address, he could lose the presidency right on the Denver podium.
Posted by: algasema | August 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Report this comment“He jumped the gun, with only two years’ senate experience wanted to be president. … But all will be well when the charlatan Obama is forced off the stage.”
RCS,
I must say I agree with Wendell in the sense that your commentary on Barack Obama lacks any meaningful depth. I would have a think before you make remarks as per your above post.
As Bill Clinton said yesterday, the “inexperience” tag was one with which some politicians tried to stigmatize him during his first run for the White House in 1992. However, Bill’s 8 years as President are proof that a young, dynamic, well-educated and broadly exposed leader can demonstrate sound judgement without being 60+ years old.
To quote Wendell, “Senator McCain is older, therefore has more experience, a tautology”.
As stakeholders in the future of the United States, we should (at the very least) take the time to properly listen to the messages of the different candidates.
Posted by: GH | August 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm | Report this comment>>GH– Well said. I would add that it is most critical to look at the respective teams that will come into power with each candidate. Journalists are not covering this dimension.
Many posters suggest a McCain Admin will be an extension of the Bush-Cheney one. I think not, with the possible exception of Gates and even Paulsen (or their proteges). Nonetheless, there are too few bright lights beaming behind McCain. Lieberman’s presence haunts it; the Christian Right and non-AIPAC internationalists distrust his influence.
Obama launched his campaign with some seriously credentialed critics of the Bush foreign and economic policy portfolios. Then came the Jeremiah Wright Reality Hour. Samantha Power was dismissed on the back of calling Hillary a “monster” (I would’ve have added “in a pantsuit”). Larry Summers, who led pundits even in this paper to highlight Obama, has moved to the background. Zbigniew Brzezhinski felt compelled to publicly express his distance on Afghanistan and is not seen these days. Phil Gordon seems to have disappeared. Who is in? All of those AIPAC-approved names from the Clinton years–Ross, Talbott, Holbrooke. His domestic team now seems to be moving under the wings of Pelosi.
Not all shifts are bad; Moveon.org and other wired-newage-left movements need to remain on the margins of his support base, and not in the centre. He needs to win.
I keep asking tough questions about his team, but I am seeing/hearing few answers.
Posted by: wcm | August 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Report this commentDear GH,
What is Obama’s message that we should listen to? “Change we can believe in”?, “We are the ones we have been waiting for”? Nonsense. He has put forth no meaningful message, just vapid slogans. He is selling himself as a rock star, like his “surprise” appearance after the convention, like his teleconference with Michelle and their cute girls. The tension builds… when will we see him in flesh and blood?
He said he heard Hillary “had rocked the house”. How condescending, Obama giving Hillary a pat on the back. Good girl, you have learned. He can afford to be such: oratory is his specialty. I wonder if he could be so aloof after a real debate. The one where you leave the script behind you and your stream of thought (or lack of it) shows. BTW, Hillary spoke freely. Could Obama give such an intelligrnt speech without notes? Or would he have to bring out the bass?
Posted by: RCS | August 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm | Report this commentI second and applaud RC S’ comments on John McCain. The world deserves such a decent politician. May the American voters see sense when they go to the polls. They will never get a chance like that again.
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | August 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Report this commentSpeeches from people like Biden or Clinton are just that, speeches, and nothing more.
Joe Biden has made many barn-burner speeches in his years as a government-service lifer, yet what can anyone point to as an important Biden principle or issue? Nothing.
The man is all smiling gloss and no content, other than his own political interests - isn’t that close to the definition of a psychopath?
Bill Clinton is well known as furiously angry in private over Obama’s victory. Poor little Billy didn’t get what he wanted, to make history as the first ex-president whose spouse in turn becomes president.
But when a narcissist like Clinton is put on a stage in front of a big crowd he just naturally says things that make the crowd respond.
That’s just the way he’s built. His words mean nothing, almost certainly having been written for him.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | August 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Report this commentOh, that lamentable stuff above about McCain.
McCain’s many shameful acts in the past simply have not received the mainline press they well deserve.
McCain does a very good job of putting on the appearance of an honest man of some principles.
He puts on his quiet voice, and reminding me of the Richard Nixon, sometimes glancing down at his well-shined shoes, as though to wordlessly say, see what a good boy I am.
McCain actual record is nothing to be proud of.
He was a nasty brat as a young man. Easy to joke about now but not funny if you were his victim. He was a poor student. He bullied others, including some teachers. He always took advantage of being the son and grandson of admirals to get away with his sometimes vicious antics. Not my idea of character.
He remains an often nasty man in private. Many fellow politicians, including Republicans, testify to his furious temper and screaming the most obscene words at people.
As I’ve said before, when he was shot down in Vietnam, he was bombing civilians. He’s just lucky he survived. He might have been torn limb from limb in Texas had the roles been reversed.
How did he survive his being shot down? A group of local villagers, and one Vietnamese man in particular, pulled him from a lake where he would certainly have drowned.
That brave and decent Vietnamese man, whom McCain once acknowledged in passing, died recently, a very disheartened man that McCain never showed any sign of thanks or reciprocity. His wife has spoken to the press on this.
Think of how even a little money order from this well-off man could have altered the lives of those who saved him. Simply shabby.
When Mr. McCain returned home to the wife who had waited for him for the five and a half years he was in prison, he discovered his wife had been in a terrible car accident in which she was disfigured.
Instead of any compassion and loyalty, McCain started a series of affairs, ending with the very wealthy Cindy.
He left his crippled wife to marry the money. Real class, but it did help finance his political career.
During the great savings-and-loan scandals, McCain was at the center with a crooked bunch who went to prison, having not only got a lot of campaign money and favors from them, but being socially close to them. His was the most flagrant case in the nation.
His wife Cindy was (is?) a drug addict, by her own admission. She stole a very large quantity of drugs from the charity she volunteered for, an act which would earn you or me hard time in prison in Bush’s America. Bush laughed many times about young black men doing ten years in Texas prison for having a modest amount of cocaine.
You do have to ask about the mental state of a woman who is said to be worth $300 million yet who steals drugs.
But Cindy got off with a slap on the wrist, thanks in part to the efforts of her husband. This law-and-order conservative saw nothing wrong in using influence to get her off.
Cindy, in her efforts to connect with average American, also had the minor flap of misrepresenting recipes as her own when they were discovered as having been taken from others. Just a class act.
McCain in 2000 told us exactly what he really thinks of the Religious Right. He lambasted their nasty influence in American politics. After all, McCain is known as a pretty irreligious man.
Practically the next day, he was crawling around on his stomach, saying he was sorry.
And that last pattern has been typical of McCain’s entire public career. Shoot off his mouth, make big noises about being tough and honest, and then crawling back quietly having achieved nothing but adding to the reputation as maverick he relishes.
Of course, there never has been a bombing run McCain did not eagerly support. That’s why oleaginous Lieberman supports him so enthusiastically, another man who never saw a bombing run he did not like.
As for his humor, nothing so reveals him for the mild psychopath that he is. The disgusting nature of some of his jokes reminds me very much of George Bush.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | August 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentSee this summary: http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/08/to-his-supporte.html
>>JC– You’ve taken us into next week. This one seems over. Thanks!
Nothing in your indictment of McCain was new to me or seems out of context. Much had slipped from my screen, however.
So, Obama must deliver substance tonight and goign forward.
He needs to stand aside from AIPAC handling.
He needs less time playing to Oprah’s audience.
He needs to leave the Clintons in a ditch; they will add nothing to his campaign. George bush and John McCain are not buddies. Maybe George can get the DoJ to find some dodgy stuff on Bill’s harddrive and put the couple under house arrest until November.
He needs to light the fires in the minds of smart, young, WIRED people again, as he did across campuses in the months BEFORE jeremiah Wright.
Americans are not happy. If they sense true competence and a clean break with failed policies–especially in foreign relations, then they will vote for Obama to lead some changes.
Otherwise, they will see this as just another lousy choice to make, meaning that those bright young ones will sit it. The more fortunate will extend the migration (between 6-7 million) that is now larger than many European countries.
Posted by: wcm | August 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentExcerpts from the Wikipedia:
“[McCain] urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce, which she did in February 1980, with the uncontested divorce taking effect in April 1980. The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments due to her 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.”
“Upon leaving the military, he moved to Arizona. His 17 military awards and decorations include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star and Navy Commendation Medal, for actions before, during, and after his time as a POW.”
“In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain. He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, which was stopped by guards. After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda “confession”. He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, “I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.” His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract “confessions” and propaganda statements.”
And of course this:
“In mid–1968, McCain’s father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release. The North Vietnamese made that offer because they wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.”
For further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
Posted by: RCS | August 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm | Report this comment>>RCS– The word amongst some top (retired) Annapolis guys is that they are voting for Obama, regardless of what he says tonight. McCain certainly knows how to update his Wikipedia page, but you and possibly it have failed to note that he didn’t return to a US (Phoenix) that would offer him the sort of self-respecting job a warrior longs for. He went to work as a PR guy in the brewery owned by the father of his next wife.
The rest is history. It is Obama’s history that still needs some roadtesting. Original roadtesting and not the AIPAC press-kit material.
Posted by: wcm | August 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentJohn Chuckman, all of us should also remember this:
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..” — John 8:7
Posted by: RCS | August 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Report this commentRCS and Elizabeth Schumann, I agree that John McCain once WAS a decent and honorable man - that is until he changed his positions on just about everything imaginable in order to cave in to the intolerant, extremist, neocon zealots on the Republican right.
Of course, talking about the “extremist” Republican right is a tautology. When was there last such a thing as the Republican center? Maybe in Eisenhower’s time.
Posted by: algasema | August 28th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this comment“As I’ve said before, when he was shot down in Vietnam, he was bombing civilians. He’s just lucky he survived. He might have been torn limb from limb in Texas had the roles been reversed.”
This is one of the more noteworthy facts about Senator McCain and in general when it comes to praising soldiers whose job it is to kill and destroy. He was extraordinarily lucky to have survived the downing of his plane and the wrath of those whose children he killed and whose homes and surroundings he destroyed.
I tend to agree with many who have noted that the American public - myself included - knows relatively little about Senator McCain, aside from the myths as “war hero” and “maverick”.
Also I agree with those commenters who dismiss the speeches and commentary by the pundits - even good pundits like Mr. Crook - made at Conventions. Almost all the speeches are boring and have no impact on anything. Speeches can be powerful needless to say. A columnist in the NYTimes recently cited a speech by Franklin Roosevelt from April 1932. The end of his speech reported below could apply now. It is the willingness of a politician to speak the truth that flies in the face of conventional myths that makes for an electrifying speech such as those made repeatedly by Roosevelt.
“But they [the half of the population then living in poverty on farms and in small towns] seem to be beyond the concern of a national [Hoover] administration which can think in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the top down rather than permanent relief from the bottom up. It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way. It has waited until something has cracked and then at the last moment has sought to prevent total collapse.
“It is high time to get back to fundamentals. It is high time to admit with courage that we are in the midst of an emergency at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to meet it.”
Posted by: Wendell Murray | August 28th, 2008 at 7:08 pm | Report this commentWell Algasema your 12:00 post actually made me curious about John Kerry’s speech and I think you are judging the man harshly, it was a pretty good speech, short, direct to the point and surprisingly punchy. You should listen to it, might change your opinion…
Posted by: Alex | August 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm | Report this commentWendell Murray,
From the latest edition of The Economist:
“While Mr Obama was playing hide-and-seek with his fellow six-year-olds, Mr McCain was dodging surface-to-air missiles over North Vietnam. After failing to dodge one of them, he ejected from his plane, broke three limbs and fell into a lake. He was dragged out by a mob, stabbed in the groin and beaten nearly to death. As a prisoner-of-war, he was denied medical treatment until his captors realised he was the son of an admiral.”
Does John Chuckman have it right and is The Economist wrong?
Here is the full article:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12001775
Posted by: RCS | August 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm | Report this comment“doubters point to Mr McCain’s sizzling temper, that bellicosity and the fact that a man of 72 cannot be utterly sure he will be sprightly and alert in four years’ time.” from the end of the article on Senator McCain in the Economist.
The Economist is an outstanding publication, but the only people who know the veracity of the events surrounding the downing of Senator McCain’s plane and his capture are Senator McCain himself (from all evidence not the most trustworthy of sources) and the Vietnamese who found him. That is my point. How many people know the truth whatever it is as opposed to the mythology? On the one hand, I envy no one who flies a jet to begin with or whose job it is to drop bombs on anyone for whatever reason or someone who has to float to land after ejecting from a disabled aircraft. Noteworthy that Senator McCain survived all of that, but the larger picture is much more important than his luck and no doubt his tenacity at staying alive no matter what the specifics.
What I find grossly inappropriate however, but increasingly typical of Senator McCain’s attitude is to dismiss questions about his enormous wealth, that has otherwise been purposely hidden from public view, as represented by the number of homes he and his wife own by referring to his 5 years as a prisoner of war when questioned about his homes and his wealth. An attitude that is rrelevant and arrogant at the same time. Not only irrelevant, but it makes one wonder what in fact happened to him those 5 years.
That again is my point. How much does the average or even interested voter know about Senator McCain aside from the mythology arising from his prisoner-of-war status many decades ago?
Posted by: Wendell Murray | August 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am | Report this commentWhat a wonderful, magnificent, speech Barack Obama made Thursday night. It was full of eloquence, intelligence, courage, vision, compassion and yes, specifics - more of them than McCain could understand in a lifetime. This speech will go down with Roosevelt’s “Nothing to fear” speech, Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you” speech, Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, and, yes, Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, as one of the five most inspiring, and yet detailed and down-to earth speeches in American history.
I predict that school children in every part of America will be learning about this speech 100, 200, even 300 or more years from now.
America has a very great man, one of the towering figures in our history, in our midst. Let us hope that our country can rise to greatness long enough to elect him president.
Posted by: algasema | August 29th, 2008 at 5:05 am | Report this commentHitler could sway crowds. Hitler was the first to use stadiums.
Read the transcript of the speech and it is not all that out of the ordinary.
Many populist promises that simply do not add up.
People, come back to your senses!
Where is the pied piper leading you?
Posted by: RCS | August 29th, 2008 at 7:00 am | Report this commentI have commented about RCS irrational Obama/Hitler comparison in my post in Clive Crook’s more recent blog, so I will nor repeat myself here. I do, however, agree that getting Obama’s promises to “add up” will be a challenge. However, RCS might also want to do some arithmetic to see how much John McCain’s Iraq war, or perhaps his projected ones in Iran, Georgia, or wherever, would add up to, and which of America’s foreign creditors would be willing to pay for them. Would China, for example, want to continue to help us out?
Posted by: algasema | August 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm | Report this comment