TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
27.08.2008
Bill Clinton: Part Scoundrel, Part Demagogue, All Charm

Andrew Delbanco is the Levi Professor in the Humanities and director of American Studies at Columbia University.

I'm a neophyte blogger, so maybe I'll doubt myself in the morning--but tonight Clinton defied my expectations. I had expected his speech to be at least a disappointment and perhaps a disgrace. He seemed outrageous Tuesday night, mouthing his devotion ("I love you, I love you") putatively to Hillary but actually to the mass TV audience, as if he wanted it deliberately unclear to whom he was professing his devotion--wife, or fans, or both. Tonight I figured he'd carry on in the same vein, talking apparently about his party's nominee but actually about himself. Hillary had done that to perfection last night with her mantra of "keep on going, keep on going"--her appeal to the faithful to keep the faith til 2012--while staying studiously reticent about Senator Obama, of whom she surely should have said more, more warmly, and with more conviction.

But I've got to hand it to him: What Hillary failed to do, Bill did with great style. With how much conviction, who knows?

"We gotta get on with the show" were his first words after the multiple aw-shucks thank yous. And quite a show it was. There were moments when I wondered if, like his wife, he was sending the nominee a coded message. "I love Joe Biden," he said, before calling Hillary's speech "magnificent." And then, with suspense building over whether he would really come out swinging for Barack, he gave us a sort of policy wonk's parenthesis, listing the Republicans' failings: mortgage foreclosure, credit card debt, income disparity, unilateralism in foreign affairs. It was the old Bill, with his uncanny ability to be professorial and populist at once.

But then he really delivered. It was the first time in the course of the convention (leaving aside Michelle Obama's tender remarks, and Ted Kennedy's valiant but truncated appeal) that I heard someone speak convincingly of why Obama is the right man at the right time. Clinton's emphasis on Obama's "unique capacity" to lead our increasingly multicultural society was an overdue point, as if all the other speakers had been too squeamish to say it. He hit a good theme by imputing to Obama the same combination of reasonableness and toughness that he claims, with some justice, for himself. And he introduced into his speech a note of rhetorical elegance with stylish phrasings: From the Republicans all we got was "Katrina and cronyism." In Obama we will get a president who knows that "the power of our example is more impressive than the example of our power." That last one will be remembered, I suspect.

I also suspect that, reading the speech tomorrow, I'll detect some evasions. Because of Joe Biden, Clinton said, "America will have the national security leadership we need." Was there a dig there at the head of the ticket? "Yes he can," he said, nodding to the crowd as it went into its "yes we can" mantra--"but first we have to elect him," a rallying cry, yes, but also a warning not to harbor unrealistic hopes. This man might lose, and look who told you so. And then, toward the end of the speech, Bill managed to turn self-congratulation ("The Republicans said I was too young and too experienced to be commander-in-chief"!) into praise for his prospective successor.

It was a virtuoso performance. Yesterday, after Hillary's speech, I was convinced that the Clintons were preparing the groundwork for an Obama defeat that would not be laid at their feet so they would be the ones left standing. I am still appalled by how much the Republicans are borrowing from the Clintons' playbook: the stress on Obama's inexperience, the not-so-sly suggestions that he's a flash in the pan, an elitist, a little bit uppity, a little bit slick (that's a laugh from slick Willy). But tonight, Bill blew me away. He showed again that he's an utterly masterful politician--part scoundrel, part demagogue, but finally so sharp and charming that one wants to forgive him and suspend all suspicion. I only hope the Clintonites--all 18 million of them--heard and believed.

--Andrew Delbanco

Read Andrew Delbanco's literary analysis of Barack Obama's books.

Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:25 PM with 33 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

AlanSP said:

What speech were you watching last night?  All this paranoia about the Clintons trying to send secretly coded messages to undermine Obama is getting really irritating.  They both gave fantastic speeches and got behind Obama in no uncertain terms.  Hillary was speaking primarily to her own supporters, while Bill was speaking to the country more broadly.  As the elder statesman and someone who personally knows what it takes to be a good President, it means far more to have Bill say Obama is ready (and to explain why) than to have Hillary say it.

August 27, 2008 11:56 PM

marklmallory said:

I agree: far and away best speech of the convention. Now the test for Bill and Hill is whether they will challenge the embittered remnants of her masses with the truth that voting for McCain or staying home would be not just a betrayal of the Democratic party, and not just a betrayal of the country's  hope for the future--as explained so well tonight by Bill--but a personal betrayal of everything Hillary Clinton believes in and stands for as the most successful woman politician in American history. The Clintons need to use that idea of betrayal expressly in their communications with her loyalists, lest any of them think that indulging feminist grievance can possibly be an excuse for enabling four more years of distastrous Republicanism.

August 28, 2008 12:11 AM

sprechs said:

It's already become a media-narrative driven fact that McCain is "borrowing from Clintons' playbook."  First off, it's not like there was some secret anti-Obama code that the Clintons cracked and McCain benefit from.  McCain's attacks would have been identical regardless of whatever track Hillary took in opposing Obama in the primaries.  The "celebrity" bit, the elitist, etc., were all inevitable Republican attacks that Hillary didn't use in her campaign.  And my god, the psychoanalysis by TV of the Clintons has got to stop.  Is there no pundit in America, from Maureen Dowd on down, who doesn't KNOW exactly what the Clintons were thinking, intimating, or sending via coded body signals and blinking to their supporters?  Come on.

August 28, 2008 12:14 AM

ChanRobt said:

Forget the secret code, gang.  Look at the interests at stake.

The Clintons are not just ordinary presidential aspirants like a Bradley or a Giuliani who lost the game and can comfortably throw in with the victor and be good Party loyalists, etc.

The Clintons viscerally and passionately and obsessively want the White House back and they want it bad.

She wants it for her own ineffable ambitions.  He wants it to unwrite somehow, the bad stuff that happened to him (his own doing, of course) when he was there.  He's looking for a fourth act, a happy epilogue.

It does not and will not serve this close to desperate Clinton interest for Obama to win the White House.  If he does, they are literally history.  The cance of her having another shot in 2016 is, if not impossible, historically improbable.

On the other hand, if McCain wins, he is quite likely to serve only one term.  Unless he has a spectacularly successful first term-- very difficult in times such as these-- it's a good bet he would be replaced by a Democrat.

Unless McCain's VP is very talented, or someone amazing comes out of the wings on the GOP side, it will be a good year for Democrats.  Yes, Obama could come back for a second try.  But nobody since Stevenson has gotten one in the past century.  And I don't believe anyone ever won on a second try.  (I'll have to fact check).

In any event, the Clintons have both done very well by themselves at the Convention.  Now they can go through a few motions, but essentially coast and practice hidden neglect.  And hope or plot for Obama's failure in  November.

August 28, 2008 12:27 AM

GSpinks said:

I agree with AlanSP; I thought they both knocked it out of the park.

"but first we have to elect him,"

I didn't see any of the "unrealistic hopes" implication, but it was more than a rallying cry; I saw, in true Bill C. fashion, a simple, elegant argument to anyone considering staying home or voting for the other candidate in November: "Yes he can [lead us where we want to go], but first we have to elect him [otherwise, the other guy wins, and we continue to get screwed]".

August 28, 2008 12:29 AM

GSpinks said:

"The Clintons need to use that idea of betrayal expressly in their communications with her loyalists, lest any of them think that indulging feminist grievance can possibly be an excuse for enabling four more years of distastrous Republicanism."

Well said!

August 28, 2008 12:31 AM

stanmvp48 said:

I wanted more than a statement that Obama was ready to be Commander in chief; I wanted a discussion of what it takes: i.e. intelligence and principles etc rather than a long career in the Senate.  Perhaps a reference to another Illinois president who had served only one term in the House and was the greatest leader we ever had because he knew, like Obama, that we had to be one country.  

August 28, 2008 12:35 AM

GSpinks said:

"And hope or plot for Obama's failure in  November."

Its not that I don't disagree with your logic, but I think the situation is more complex than what you make it out to be. I think the two are intertwined now, and if Obama loses in the fall then Hillary is stuck. But if Obama succeeds, nothing says thank you like an appointment to a high-level cabinet position.

August 28, 2008 12:44 AM

dsmth said:

It's a pity the party can't put these people behind it.

August 28, 2008 1:11 AM

icarusr said:

Alan: Agree totally.  

August 28, 2008 1:13 AM

ChanRobt said:

GSpinks writes, "...I think the two are intertwined now, and if Obama loses in the fall then Hillary is stuck. But if Obama succeeds, nothing says thank you like an appointment to a high-level cabinet position."

Well, a cabinet post would be swell, if it were one of the cardinal ones-- State of Defense.  But she's better off in the Senate than, what, Health and Human Services?

Meanwhile, you can't forget the time factor.  When you're 61, 8 years is a long wait.  Reagan and McCain notwithstanding, most people are out of the game by that age.

August 28, 2008 1:34 AM

hemlock41 said:

What AlanSP said.

The frenzied search by bloggers for insidious double meanings in the Clintons' speeches is really too much. In particular, here, the claim that Hillary's call to "keep on going" actually meant "hold out for me until 2012" is over the top. It was a reference to Harriet Tubman, for goodness sake! (Context may not be everything, but surely it's *relevant*.)  What the phrase and the broader reference to Tubman conveyed was a sense of great urgency in changing the country's direction and, specifically, in kicking the disastrous Republicans out of office. It invoked the urgency of the runaway slave who hears the dogs on his heels and knows with every pounding step just how high the stakes are in "keeping on." To read this as a diabolically self-centered plea aimed at undermining Obama is, indeed, paranoid.

August 28, 2008 1:46 AM

AlanSP said:

Stan,

Clinton did in fact talk about the qualities that tell him Obama has what it takes: www.demconvention.com/bill-clinton

"Everything I learned in my eight years as President and in the work I’ve done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job.

He has a remarkable ability to inspire people, to raise our hopes and rally us to high purpose.  He has the intelligence and curiosity every successful President needs.  His policies on the economy, taxes, health care and energy are far superior to the Republican alternatives.  He has shown a clear grasp of our foreign policy and national security challenges, and a firm commitment to repair our badly strained military. His family heritage and life experiences have given him a unique capacity to lead our increasingly diverse nation and to restore our leadership in an ever more interdependent world.  The long, hard primary tested and strengthened him. And in his first presidential decision, the selection of a running mate, he hit it out of the park.

With Joe Biden’s experience and wisdom, supporting Barack Obama’s proven understanding, insight, and good instincts, America will have the national security leadership we need."

He also made a number of other points about dealing with other countries, etc.  Reread the speech.  I think he made a pretty convincing case

August 28, 2008 1:52 AM

AlanSP said:

"When you're 61, 8 years is a long wait.  Reagan and McCain notwithstanding, most people are out of the game by that age."

Probably more true on the Democratic side than the Republican side.  George W. Bush is actually sort of the exception to the GOP nominating old guys.  In the 7 W-free elections since 1976 to 1996, the youngest Republican nominee was Ford at 63 (Reagan 69, 73 Bush 64, 68, Dole 73, McCain 72).  Good news for Romney I guess.

August 28, 2008 2:19 AM

AlanSP said:

Typo: that shoul just say "In the 7 W-free elections since 1976, the youngest Republican nominee was Ford at 63..."

August 28, 2008 2:58 AM

Robert Powell said:

Bill Clinton is the most talented and effective the Democrats have had since FDR, at least up to now. This very appropriate and effective speech should remind everyone that he is far too great a resource to waste on some Jimmy Carter-like drift into the background. This guy needs a real job, and we need him to have one.

August 28, 2008 4:14 AM

ChanRobt said:

Robert P, you're absolutely right.  the Democrats would be crazy to sideline him.

Obama is a wonderful soaring orator.  But he doesn't lay out a convincing logic trail of coherent and well styled argument like Clinton does.

His "Power of example vs the example of power" was the best turn of phrase I've heard in a speech in a long time.

August 28, 2008 4:26 AM

Robert Powell said:

Chan--

You've got a good ear. In Europe, at least in the English, German, Ukrainian, and Polish-speaking parts, that line is being repeated on every TV and radio channel. Joe Biden is a swell guy as far as it goes, but the real resource on major policy experience in the Democratic Party is William Jefferson Clinton. Would be a terrible thing to waste.

The Clinton legacy of taking the best Republican ideas and making them work is the kind of advance beyond "the partisan politics of the past" Obama is talking about. Let's hope he's as successful, minus the openings Willie provided for the GOP to practice old-fashioned yellow journalism partisanship.

August 28, 2008 5:20 AM

Nippers said:

ChanRobt wrote: "But nobody since Stevenson has gotten [a second try] in the past century.  And I don't believe anyone ever won on a second try.  (I'll have to fact check)."

Nixon?

August 28, 2008 7:45 AM

fougasseu said:

Robert Powell: I couldn't agree more.

Clinton is remarkable, and both Clintons did right by their Party. Last night was a terrific showcase for themes, talent, principles and core issues. I'm sure the Party is more united, more galvanized than it has been in years.

Oddly, this opportunity wasn't created by the Democrats, it was all made possible by George Bush and the GOP. Can McCain find a third way? It would seem McCain has to pick Lieberman to show in the strongest terms possible he's not running for Bush's third term.

August 28, 2008 8:00 AM

Eos said:

The putrid reek of disdain and the forced misperceptions (e.g, mouthing 'I love you' to the cameras) in Delbanco's screed are such fixed and cliched features of academic perspectives on real lives.  Unfortunate.

August 28, 2008 8:15 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Human beings are never black and white, and with the Clintons, you get the marching band version of yin/yang.

I never stopped loving Bill Clinton.  Even though I hate him too.

August 28, 2008 8:59 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Channy - Bill and Hillary are capable of feeling and being opposite things at the same time, we all are - why do you think so many shrinks are political junkies?

Bill and Hillary:  Viscerally wanting something so badly you shame yourself and exhausting your supporters, while simultaneously being such incredible patriots and magical people,  you're just glad to see them live rather than reading about them in history books.

August 28, 2008 9:04 AM

icarusr said:

Eos: calm down; even when everyone here is praising your guy, you still seem, well, bitter.  Take a valium and call your local psych on November 6.

RP and Chan: indeed.  The last four years living in Europe, the one thing that bothered the true lovers of America was the descent of the American example.  

Hemlock: Agree totally.  This post proves to me, as if I needed proof, why academics - and journalists for that matter - are not good political or communication analysts.  There is no text that put to this sort of overanalysis would not convey some sort of nefarious "code".  And while Eos is too fuming to be taken serious, I do think that the "I love you" thing was over the top; way, way over the top.

As Freud said, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes, and expression of pride in a woman you have lived with and gone to war with over thirty years is just that; and sometimes, "this mean is ready to be President" means, precisely that, and does not include a sin of omission.

It was a powerful performance - I don't like and have never liked Bill, but he is very gifted.  Both Hillary and Bill have risen in my estimation over the past two days, and I hope that they are used just as effectively in the coming campaign.  Above all, I think both of them know what is at stake, and unlike Eos and others, they realise that the next four years could well be among the most crucial for the health of the country.

August 28, 2008 9:11 AM

sleepyavl said:

Diagnosis by TV or blog or website is a sure sign of imbecility. The media does it, and so do various TNR contributors. No, they're not board-certified physicians - but they diagnose with abandon, they recommend taking vallium, taking medication and so on.

To each such imbecile charlatan, I sincerely wish brain surgery done by someone who knows as much about neurosurgery as they themselves know about psichiatry.

August 28, 2008 2:18 PM

ericad said:

Wandreycerl:  exactly!

And I agree with the writer of this piece and AlanSP said to a T.  Some of this "searching for hidden code" is a branch off of daily poll watching and the "sportsification" of the compaign process.  All these talking heads just need something to fill their time slots with.

August 28, 2008 3:10 PM

ChanRobt said:

Robert P, you're always astute and clear-eyed.  You're also a bit of an idealist.

I don't think the Obamas want the Clintons around, even though they could be very valuable.  And the Clintons don't really have a good reason to help him get elected-- quite the contrary.

I suspect they will both be surprisingly low profile over the next two months.  they'll do enough that they can't be accused of malign neglect.  But, I don't think much more.

August 28, 2008 3:30 PM

ChanRobt said:

Thanks, Nippers.  Nixon was a pretty big one for me to forget.  He also got his second chance (third, if you count the losing run for guv of California) in every extraordinary times.

But, I believe I'm accurate in saying that the Democrats not only have not brought back their losers in modern times, but they've had a tendency to try to bury them.

August 28, 2008 3:33 PM

ChanRobt said:

fougasseu, if Lieberman were a conservative Democrat or a Yellow Dog of some sort, he might be viable.

But only in foreign affairs, and particularly on Iraq is Lieberamn in line with the GOP.  On virtually every domestic and social issue (not sure where he is on gay marriage) there is a giant gulf.

I don't think Lieberman is going to get it.  And if he does, it will lose more Republicans than it will gain independents.    I don't think Joe has a particularly big constituency anywhere anymore.  Might not even be able to win CT again.

August 28, 2008 3:37 PM

ChanRobt said:

Lest my opinions be misconstrued, I think Clintons "power of example vs example of power" line was brilliant writing and rhetoric.  I even think it is an excellent and wise aphorism.

But, in the instances since 9/11 where we have exercised our power, I believe we were right to do it, and had to do it.

If Europe believes we were showing naked swords to threaten and cow the rest of the world, so be it.  

We did unsheath our swords to remove one enemy and chasten others.  

I'm glad we did.

August 28, 2008 3:46 PM

ChanRobt said:

TYPO CORRECTO

He also got his second chance ...in very extraordinary times.

August 28, 2008 3:46 PM

esmense said:

The "Clintonites" won't decide this election. It will be the usual, much less engaged, much less partisan army of "swing" voters. The job of reaching them and gaining their trust is Obama's alone.

This obsession with all things Clinton is unseemly. And this column's crackpot (US and People Magazine-type) pop psychology makes one doubt the age, intelligence and life experience of the writer

The Clintons did what they could do and what was needed to unite the party, and did it very well. (I no more care about what was "in their hearts" while they did so than I care about what is in the hearts of my employees when they perform exeptionally well -- I presume they do so because they take pride in their work, want to prove their value,  and are aiming to earn bigger and better paychecks in the future. It would be a exceedingly creepy for me to expect, and think it could only count in their favor if, they did so because they "sincerely" or "authentically" love and adore me, think I'm the most talented and special employer on earth, etc., etc..)

But, while a united party will be useful and necessary for victory in November, it won't be the determining factor in that victory. So its time to focus on the person who has asked for, and been given, the actual responsibility for success in November.

This is silly "commentary" that would be at home in the pages of the National Examiner.

August 28, 2008 4:40 PM

ChanRobt said:

esmense, every once in a while, somebody here cuts through all the crap in a nice, plain, common sensical, no nonsense way.

Thanks for being the one who did it today.

August 28, 2008 7:07 PM