Covering the convention coverage
The consensus on Clinton’s speech last night seems to fall between “world-historically awesome” and “the speech by which all future speech will be judged and found wanting.” I wouldn’t expect anything less from the best Republican President in recent memory. But what’s interesting to me isn’t the content of the speech—whatever it was I didn’t watch it—but the reaction of conservatives to a successful speech by a prominent Democrat. Consider who’s discussing the two most popular transcripts according to memeorandum:
For your convenience I clicked on all of the possible links to conservative blogs or news organizations. Notice something? Either it’s taking them a very long time to devise an effective strategy to counter Clinton’s rhetoric or they’ve decided that refusing to write about it will make it go away. In their defense there’s a good chance they’re correct—not because they’ve chosen to ignore it but because conventions aren’t important anymore—but I can’t pass up the opportunity to note the wonderful irony of watching the party of Manly Men Who Make Money and War paralyzed into a panicked silence when confronted by the molehill they’ve mistaken for a mountain.
They just don’t make Republicans like they used to, huh? Somebody needs to check their quality control.
You know what? I really miss the first George Bush. I’d kind of like to have an actual debate with actual small-government, rational Republicans about how we should fix the country.
The first Bush was not a nihilist sociopath like the current crop – but I’m not terribly sure he was a “small-government conservative”, either. At least not in the way we currently understand the term.
I’m also pretty sure his 1988 campaign was premised on avoiding an “actual debate” about issues.
Also, “How would you like it if I judge your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?”
Because Dan Rather’s flakiness was every bit as germane as Bush’s role in Iran-Contra.
Honestly, this is exactly what I keep telling my Republican relatives. “Please, nominate someone who isn’t a nihilist sociopath. I just don’t want to be afraid all the time.”
The modern Republican party: they make Stephen King’s Under the Dome seem like a fair minded, historically accurate allegory. Seriously, 50 years from now, people will see that book as this generation’s Animal Farm. The saddest part is that everyone will think that King was being too generous to the liberal Democrats in the allegory.
Whoever choreographed this convention must believe Obama has a real stemwinder of a speech written, because he has two tough acts to follow in Michelle and Clinton.
This is like going to a three-day revivalist meeting. The tent is shaking, the crowd is weak in the knees, all the preacher has to do is come out and smile now, then thunder the rafters.
Yes, I’m a tad bit worried he’ll be upstaged. Luckily for Obama, he’s an amazing public speaker.
Also, I enjoyed all the Twitter uproar (He so isn’t using a teleprompter!). I wonder if he really was? I mean… everyone does usually. I noticed his hands shaking a lot during the speech. I couldn’t tell if he was getting emotional, or is just old.
I saw the shaking hands too in the few minutes I watched and wondered the same thing.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
I thought alcohol is what gave one the shakes?
That’s alcohol withdrawal. And yet another reason to never stop drinking.
to paraphrase the Replacements, but then how would I get any exercise
Yeah, I’m really curious about the shaking. It’s not possible Bill Clinton was nervous, right?
He wasn’t using a teleprompter – the speech he gave was apparently substantially different from the prepared text.
And according to the MSNBC commentators, he went way, way over his allotted time.
I thought the commercial break 80% of the way through his speech was weird.
Going over explains it. Gotta make those $$$ from advertises, screw the country!
That’s how you can tell that it was given by Bill Clinton and not a Cylon imposter.
I was following Weigel’s Twitter feed as Clinton delivered it. Weigel kept highlighting things Clinton was saying that weren’t in the prepared text released to the media. This wasn’t limited to the “pay attention, this is true” asides, either. However, I’ve since read that he had two prepared versions — the one he ended up giving and one shortened to conclude by 11.
according to, I think, Howard Fineman, he was using a teleprompter, but just regularly went off on digressions, making the operators (they’re manually operated) have to figure out when to resume scrolling
No doubt it was on but Clinton’s gift for extemporaneous speaking is well known and his predilection for going off-script is equally well known, not to say notorious. I’m sure he had a few of those lines in his pocket but it was still an remarkable display.
Not at all — they have a perfect table setter in Biden, who will bring expectations back down to earth.
Don’t underestimate Biden. He says a lot of stupid things, but he has complete command over an audience. He’s a great front man…
I’m not underestimating him, I’m just being a realist — there’s just no way he brings the house down the way Obama 46 or Clinton 42 did.
Joe will deliver an engaging, workmanlike speech that will touch on the administration’s accomplishments, maybe get in a few digs at the other ticket, then get off the stage so that people can hear from the headliner, who will deliver a much better speech than his VP — as it should be.
Obama 46 — is that Michelle?
Yup, and I suspect she’ll get a lot of campaign help from Clintons 45 and 42.
Biden’s really in his element when he’s talking to the working classes. Advance copies of his script seem to indicate it will be red meat stuff.
He’ll be fine. Not Clinton and not Michelle fine, but Uncle Joe fine.
Why should we listen to you opine on the speech and its effects when you brag that you haven’t listened to it? Further, you call Clinton a Republican … you mean of the Abe Lincoln branch of the party I presume, and in contrast to the Orville Faubus branch of the Democrats.
First, you seem to unaware of a recent Internet Tradition.
Second, Clinton was a DLC candidate who governed from right-of-center. His primary “accomplishments” were NAFTA, welfare reform, deregulating the financial industry, and the 1995 Telcom Act. He’s what a responsible pro-corporate and anti-union Republican would look like, were such a thing to exist.
hey don’t forget the DMCA
Intellectual property is not really a left-right issue. (Also, the DMCA receives far more criticism than it deserves — without notice-and-takedown, sites like YouTube would have been litigated out of existence years ago.)
the DMCA does much more than this
Correct, but my point was simply that without the DMCA, you lose substantial chunks of the modern Internet. (And you probably don’t get notice-and-takedown without at least some of the bad stuff, since you don’t have a strong constituency lobbying for it in 1996. Also, members of Congress don’t understand intellectual property pretty much at all.)
of course you don’t have a strong constituency for doing things that benefit the people in general because both parties had sold themselves to more monied groups.
The DMCA is a MPAA/RIAA baby. Those groups are known to be Democratic Party supporters(although they’ve been lavish with cash and access to “stars” with both sides).
And, SEK, thank you for stating better what I’ve been telling people for years. Clinton was the best, with Obama a close second, Republican president in my lifetime.
This description of Obama only works if you count the PPACA as being Republican legislation. Yes, it uses Bob Dole’s and the Heritage Foundation’s policy ideas – but to accomplish a Democratic goal, and one that it’s likely Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation only ever proffered disingenuously as a bait-and-switch; that is to say, any Democrat seeking to take them up on their ideas would be rapidly discover that the Republicans refused to support their own ideas, because they don’t support the goal of universal access to healthcare. As indeed Obama discovered.
any Democrat seeking to take them up on their ideas would be rapidly discover that the Republicans refused to support their own ideas, because they don’t support the goal of universal access to healthcare.
Agreed. But it was still the conservative alternative to the plan which the “republican” Bill Clinton had proposed. Yet, Obama is considered the progressive here.
The fact that he, you know, got it passed might be the explanation. There are a lot of people who seems to think that if Obama proposed a single-payer plan that got 7 votes in the Senate rather than getting the ACA passed, that would make him more progressive.
His primary “accomplishments”
Well, you might also include balancing the budget (in a time of prosperity, like Keynes says), presiding over the best economy since the 60s, and winning a war.
bubbles do make the economy great
It was far from all bubble.
We shouldn’t blame the ’20s for the ’30s?
Blame the French.
http://hnn.us/articles/did-france-cause-great-depression
it was pretty much all based on the foundation of the bubble. Much like the Confederacy was based on the foundation of slavery
I don’t think I’ll change your mind on this, but IMO that’s horribly unfair to the Clinton administration. Here’s a small list of liberal achievements that you’ve left out:
The Family and Medical Leave act
Expansion of the federal parks program
Expansion of the EITC (the only really progressive tax relief in the last 40 years)
The Brady Gun Control Bill
Where’s the moms-with-newborns-can-bite-me program? What about the oil-drilling-in-schools initiative? I’m not seeing the raise-employment-taxes/cut-capital-gains plan here. And what about the Free Guns for Toddlers?
Clinton maybe wasn’t a liberal, but IMO it’s unfair to call him a Republican. There hasn’t been a Republican like him since Grant sat in the White House.
Clinton was a liberal until he lost that AG’s race in Arkansas. I’m sure he viewed it as making a compromise for “the greater good”(IE, salvaging his career), but his reformation as a pro-Bidness centrist, while probably a political necessity, has locked the Democratic Presidency in what previously would have been called liberal or moderate Republicanism for the foreseeable future.
Thank you. And lets not forget HIPAA and the SCHIP program. And he also saved more federal land from development than any president since Theodore Roosevelt.
I have no problem with anyone calling him a great republican president. But I find that characterization rather disingenuous on a blog which repeatedly refers to Obama as a great progressive president.
But I find that characterization rather disingenuous on a blog which repeatedly refers to Obama as a great progressive president.
Which blog would that be?
The one named after a Warren Zevon song. Hint: Its not called Excitable Boy.
This blog has called Obama the second most progressive president since FDR, but that doesn’t mean they were calling him progressive. Some president’s are more progressive than others as some dwarves are taller than others.
I havent been following Roland the Headless in a while, now
But you must admit, illsleepwhenimdead.blogspot.com was a bold choice for a mommyblogger to adopt.
See, e.g., http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/03/to-explain-what-should-be-obvious
That link is a very thorough and complete refutation of what you are saying.
You might be right as I just glanced at it. But Obama is no more a progressive than the second tallest person in a room full of dwarfs is tall.
You might be right as I just glanced at it. But Obama is no more a progressive than the second tallest person in a room full of dwarfs is tall.
You may be coming close to understanding what I’m arguing!
Anyway, for the record describing Clinton as a “Republican” only makes sense if we’re discussing Aaron Sorkin shows.
SEK — “disingenuous” was probably too strong of a word. “Inconsistent” would have been more appropriate. Any post here referring to Obama as a great “republican president” would engender hundreds of comments in his defense, although he’s not much different than Clinton.
SEK — “disingenuous” was probably too strong of a word. “Inconsistent” would have been more appropriate.
In addition to what others said about this not being a hive-mind, I should just note that I wasn’t the least bit offended on being called out on that. I’ve only ever discussed Bill Clinton once, in 2007, before I was blogging here and in a completely different context, so you not knowing why I made that crack is perfectly understandable. But I stand by it, if only because I’m not about to reevaluate my entire opinion on his Presidency. I like the fact that I joined Food Not Bombs and protested against NAFTA and the ’95 Telcom Act, and I don’t think any amount of retrospective tempering will ever change the deep impression of that experience.
So, to my mind, Clinton will always be center-right, and further center-right than Obama. If nothing else, the financial collapse is as much Clinton’s fault as it is Bush’s, and Obama’s at least taken baby-steps to re-regulate the industry. So he’s still slightly to Clinton’s left.
Please note that there are several authors on this blog who do not all agree on all issues. I do not think I have ever seen SEK make that claim (nor Loomis for that matter), though Scott does so on occasion. It is not disingenuous for posters to disagree, but rqather a mark of the openess and inclusivity of the blog.
Duly noted. Disingenuous was the wrong word.
If there’s thing I’m known for, it’s lauding Obama’s every move!
And Juche. You will always be known for Juche.
JUCHE!!!!!!!
In case I haven’t made myself clear, I was referring to the “collective” here, including the commenters, rather than to any individual author. The attacks on Obama from the left here are defended with great vigor, whereas Clinton can be called a “republican” without anyone putting up a defense. That seems inconsistent as they’re not very different politically, if at all.
I think any number of us here would call Obama center-right and have done so (including myself).
and would the “liberal” republicans of days of yore (to whom I think Scott was comparing Clinton) not been in favor of these?
There hasn’t been a Republican like him since Grant sat in the White House.
I guess you don’t remember Theodore Roosevelt.
Anyway, by my assessment, Clinton was to the Right of Eisenhower, so he was at least as Republican an a nominal Republican who governed in my life time.
JzB
by my assessment, Clinton was to the Right of Eisenhower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
I like Ike, but there’s been a lot of whitewashing of his actual record. His record on civil rights — being completely incapable of dealing with the most prominent issue of the time, and so just ignoring it — deserves as much scorn as Reagan’s treatment of AIDS.
Not to mention overthrowing the governments of Guatemala and Iran.
And cancelling the 1956 Vietnam reunification election. Wonder what consequences that had?
OK, Roosevelt. I’m not a huge fan of TR, but I’ll spot you that one.
Republicans are too busy ejaculating all over the “There’s No God and Fuck the Jews” clause in the Democratic Party platform to write much of anything about Bill Clinton.
but since the Dems added these, they’ll now focus in how they got the craven Dems to change their platform.
I’m still annoyed by that. There was a nice chart on here about how often “God” was in the Republican party platform in the last 50 years.
It wasn’t often, and all the sudden if you don’t have “God” in your political platform you are some kind of crazy socialist? Worse yet, you have to cave in and add it.
What Republican criticism I’ve seen either claims that it was too long or too self-centered to be effective. Considering that Clinton’s performance was riveting (at least to anyone who tuned in to hear a political speech) and was 100% about Barack Obama, I think they’re just desperate.
Oh, and the supercilious dolt Scott Johnson says it was double secret Obama trashing. I included the link but I wouldn’t bother clicking it to discover what game of logical Twister he plays to arrive at this conclusion; he simply asserts that it is so and reminds you that he’s read a book about Abraham Lincoln.
RE the “too self-centered”, a comparison:
Christie’s RNC Keynote:
7 mentions of Romney by name (and amazingly none of Obama)
Clinton’s DNC Keynote:
34 mentions of Obama by name (and 6 of Romney)
So, please, let the Republicans claim our keynote speaker was the self-centered one.
Didn’t watch the speech..?
Neither did we, but when we went to bed and turned on the radio (normally for classic music to help decompress before turning the lights out) President Clinton was still barn-burning it.
We got to hear about how balancing a budget is done with something called – wait for it – arithmetic! Handicapped by growing up poor in Arkansas but learned arithmetic.
Fabulous. We got about 20 minutes, and even listened to a little commentary after, but was glad when the music started. a good nights sleep followed. I liked President Bubba about 65% of the time. I hated it that he allowed the R’s to force him into embarrassing everyone about oral sex and infidelity.
I wasn’t too fond of the welfare changes – there are people who are mentally unable to work at anything. Some who can’t show up at the same time every day, or can’t read, not because they don’t try either. Just borderline plain old crazy, but not needing institutionalized, just needing help. Or age-related dementia.
But I was glad to hear him frothing on about all the crazy bad things the Republicans have done in our lifetimes; there can’t be too much airing of that dirty linen. And we were both sad to hear the age in his speech.
When we lose the Big Dawg, President Clinton, we will have lost a good man who did good work. Being an emotional person, I will cry a little as I wish him goodbye.
Agreed. Regardless of your position on Clinton, or conventions, it was a dynamo performance. He systematically went through every one of Romney/Ryan’s lies and dismantled with a wonderful combination of simple logic, facts and sarcasm. For the purpose of edification of anyone on the fence or considering staying home in November, he effectively explained just why you need to vote for Obama. Anyone who loves politics and/or the art of a well-delivered speech should shell out the 50 minutes. Especially if you ever wonder when Dems will bring a gun to the knife-fight…Clinton brought it. Well worth watching.
He brought a goddamn bazooka last night. I flipped over during commercials of the football game, and ended up watching more of the speech than the game (which the Giants’ secondary helped make possible). It was a fantastic speech and a great defense of Obama’s record against the republican lies.
Ryan made it too easy. I’m sure Clinton saw Ryan’s speech and jizzed himself.
When we all saw the cliff notes from Ryan’s speech we thought “Someone should write a clear rebuttal to this crap…”.
Clinton delivered!
I’m surprised he’s not still talking
Didn’t watch the speech..?
New Internet Tradition.
I agree that the Big Dog’s speech was as good as everyone says. That said, I found myself wondering why so few others in the game can pull something comparable off. I know a great many people, not professional politicians, who could have done something about as good. It’s just not that hard. Why can so few do it?
Lemme handle this, being an actor and so forth.
I know a lot of great actors. In rehearsal. Or in classwork. Some of them, you look and scratch your head and wonder why they struggle for work.
Then you watch them in an audition.
Same thing applies here. It’s easy to talk to a bunch of people you know in a small group, but get up in front of an arena and millions tuned in on TV and everything is on the line for them, and even the best (which is why I think Big Dog’s hands shook last night) get antsy and freeze up.
OK, that makes sense. But what about the script? I loved what Bubba did extemporaneously to liven up the prepared text — that boy could probably charm the panties off of Sister Campbell — but why don’t others have as good a script? Why aren’t the speechwriters cranking out stuff this good for everyone? What did he say — leaving aside the way he put it across –that others couldn’t have been saying for the last four years to try to sell the President and his program?
My lovely wife had the convention on when I got home in time to see Warren, who was good, and Clinton, who was spectacular.
Left to my own devices I would have missed this.
Uncle Eb, above, summarized it perfectly:
JzB
Althouse channels her inner Drunken Camille Paglia to tell us what Clinton’s speech was really about.
I’m not going to read that link, but how does Noon’s penis size fit into her argument this time?
EASILY is the answer here.
I’m not going to read that link
Then just try and avoid this mango:
how does Noon’s penis size fit into her argument this time?
That would be addressed in her second Clinton post:
Also, Clinton is fucking Scarlett Johanssen, or something.
If “burning on the inside” reminds Ann of sex, she should really bring it up at her next gyno appointment.
I think she likes it like that
Watching Althouse attempt Freudian visual rhetoric analysis gives me immense new levels of respect for SEK’s work.
No, I don’t mean….
Ugh.
Like a thief in the night.
And I’m a little bit dumber for having read that link.
Errr. This person seems to have some sexual issues. Serious, serious issues.
If when Clinton says someone is “burning with passion on the inside” and you think of having sex with him…
Also, the logic was pretty painful to follow. I used to write things like this in 3rd grade when I was trying to disprove facts to get out of a bad test grade (98%!? Srs teacher!?).
Good thing she’s not a tennis fan. On the US Open they are currently discussing the benefits of playing with “a longer stick.” I can just see the box-wine splatter on her television…
GOP POV – ala “1984″ revisionist style:
Oh, Bill Clinton wasn’t all THAT!
He wasn’t 1/2 as good as George W. Bush was, speaking in Tampa last week.
Too bad “The Old Poodle’s’ effort last night fell so far short of the masterful barnburning speech George W. Bush gave last week at the Republlican’s Tampa Convention.
His explanation of how he balanced his budgets, “Arithmetic,” fell far short of Bush’s message, “Make-believe.”
Pundits have pounced this morning, saying that this again proved how out of touch the Democrats are with “Real Americans’ – pointing out how much they prefer “Make-believe” to “Arithmetic.”
They also pointed out how the Democrats, with their ‘history and reading,’ can’t match the Republican message of ‘recess and snack-time.’
And so, the reviews are in: In the “Battle of the Ex-President’s,” the American people find the message of their great former President, George “The Ranch Hound Dog” Bush, far superior to the one presented by “The Old Poodle.”
It’s a shame that Bill Clinton failed President Obama and the Democrats last night.
But did anyone really expect a different outcome?
And good a public speaker as Bill Clinton can be, how can he compare to the great George W. Bush?
The man who, after having been given the limelight one more time in Tampa, proved once and for all that he is the most masterful politican and public speaker in recent American history.
And so, if you compare their two speeches, after you do that math, you realize – that ain’t no “Make-believe!”
As a stylistic aside, this kind of post is more effective with Memeorandum Colors.
Out of curiosity, how does Peter Suderman writing a piece at Reason not count as a conservative blog or news organization?
I must’ve missed that one. Well, three then.
[...] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}To answer Scott’s question, the narrative that would be used to try to counter Clinton was already in place: Even here, [...]
[...] == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}In our first installment, we learned that conservatives will just ignore any issue that shines a positive light on Obama. In today’s installment, we learn that conservatives will also ignore any issue that shines a [...]