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.
Given that we now know how far the McCain campaign is prepared to go in negativity, the Clintons should be able to reflect and be glad its not them in the firing line. There would have been a slime video appearing every hour rubbing in their every recorded misdemeanour (of which there are many). It is becoming evident that people with that much baggage cannot
run for the top job any more. Don't know whether that's good or bad - but it's a fact.
"If those really are his feelings, he disguised them brilliantly"…"These excellent performances do somewhat diminish the new team."
The Clintons were trying their best to reinforce the whiff of buyer's remorse that Democrats like me are feeling right now, and they probably succeeded. I've sent Bill's speech to my laboratory to scan for traces of faint praise, but he seems to have learned from the primaries that his stock falls fast when he lets angry, petty Bubba out for public display. But leaks from acolytes strongly suggest that Clinton despises Obama, and it's not hard to imagine a hundred reasons why.
Wondering what you thought of Rear Admiral John Hutson's speech, particularly this portion:
Is that a conservative calling for responsibility and accountability after eight years of constitution trashing and mismanagement? It sounds like a larger case of "buyer's remorse" then anything remotely relating to the Clintons. It's something I don't expect to hear much about next week, much to the Republican's shame it it proves true.
Why do I feel like the Clinton's think they own DC and the Democratic party? Frankly, Hillary's still bitter and think she deserves the nomination. Bill's speech was better but I think Maureen Dowd was right in the NY Times yesterday; there is an underlying feeling of negativity and anger in the air.
I don't like entitlement in my children; I really don't like it in my political leaders. Let Obama shine like he deserves!!
jill, perhaps it's because the Media has focused the great divide in the Democratic party instead of the issues of this election.
The media has failed to do it's job for the last eight years; why should we expect this election to be any different?
Just wait until next week. I don't expect Ron Paul's supporters will be as amenable to unity as Clinton's were last night.
Y'know, Mr. Crook, meanwhile Gideon Rachman is painting you as some kind of namby-pamby satin-sheet-ophile.
“Everywhere, in rich and poor countries alike, hardworking people need good jobs; secure, affordable healthcare, food, and energy; quality education for their children; and economically beneficial ways to fight global warming.” –Bill Clinton, August 27, 2008
Methinks Barack Obama must prevail despite the soaring but oft times vacuous rhetoric. Quality education? Now, higher education is certainly within Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's bailiwick. Funny, they never seem to mention: http://theseedsof9-11.com