Clintons & Chaos: DNC Night #3
By Brian Lambert
Talk about a good soap opera. The clothes ain't much, but damn, the pissy eye scratching, the open feuds, and forget back stabbing, this gang is sinking the cutlery right into one anothers' chests.
The Clintonistas and the Obamamites? Nope. They've been perfectly chummy and adult. Very well-behaved. It's that MSNBC crowd. Who needs Big Brother 10 when we're trapped with this bunch? Not being a fan of Joe Scarborough, I missed his on-set meltdown the other morning, ripping into "colleague" David Shuster, who had the temerity to get confrontational with the ex-Republican congressman about Iraq policy—to the point that Scarborough was later quoted fuming about people with "hidden biases" on his network.
Then there was perpetually windblown Chris Matthews, a man never more than a half-second twitch from terminal spittle-flecked verbosity, getting PO'd at his co-host, Keith Olbermann, and Olbermann sandbagging Republican "analyst" Mike Murphy, who in fairness to Olbermann truly is a vacuous gas bag. (Murphy's assertion that Bill and Hillary would vote for McCain resulted in BOTH Matthews and Olbermann going after him last night.)
All in all, it's silly, juvenile, and very entertaining. The irony being that these people—these media professionals—were a significant faction of the crowd predicting Clinton-inspired chaos in Denver. They foresaw Bill and Hillary pouting and scheming and screwing things up so badly for Obama the whole DNC mob would leave home and start door-knocking for Ron Paul. Now, the stark contrast of the convention's reality to the laughably uninformed nattering of cable TV's political insider class has to be an improbable plus for Obama. How? I say anyone daft enough to believe anything said by anyone in the Blitzer-Scarborough-Matthews bubble world has to be thinking today, "Wow, all that went off pretty smooth. This act is under control."
The fact that it has, barring Bruce Springsteen endorsing Dick Cheney tonight from Invesco Field, is due in no small part to the Clintons, the unrivaled First Family of Political Soap Opera.
Bill Clinton last night was as adroit and pitch-perfect as you can get. It was Yo-Yo Ma with a TelePrompter. And was anyone surprised? Anyone?
My favorite Bill Clinton moment remains his 1999 State of the Union Address. Every drooling goober of the Hate Clinton Torch and Pitchfork Brigade, many of them sitting members of Congress and the major media, were assembled to watch him fold under the lights. Lewinsky, impeachment, twenty-four-seven 150-decibel nutbag radio shills, everyone was certain they had him . . . this time . . .finally. But instead of collapsing into a fetal tuck, Clinton stood up as though oblivious to the whole oceanic flow cutthroat bulls**t of and slammed the pack of them . . . with a flawless, high-minded, cool-as-a-fall-day address on the state of the union, which was, as the public knew (and he knew), pretty damn good at the time. Moreover, since Clinton knew how to read a poll, he knew the public was also inclined to believe the country would be even better off if the "loyal opposition" sitting out there in their upholstered leather seats, blood dripping from their fangs, would ever find time to do something more constructive than leave slime tracks around Capitol Hill.
Bill Clinton has no rival when it comes to the combination of reading the fluid dynamics of a political moment, the likely strategies of his worst enemies, and the mood of any room he happens to be speaking in. Which of course is a significant reason why opposition hacks despise him with such psychotic vigor. "It's all so calculated!" Uh, no duh. Politics is a game of reading and playing perpetually shifting strategies. Bill Clinton not only understands that, he has the native energy and intelligence to play it . . . effortlessly.
Hillary . . . mmm, not so much. As professional politicos go, she's good, and a LOT more human on the retail level than her most unhinged detractors ever give her credit for (a big mistake on their part, that she regularly exploits), but she is not and never will be the whole package that Bill is. Maybe it's the pant suits.
During the primary campaign, I often wondered what Bill was thinking in his most private moments. He had to be constantly thinking how he'd play a given moment differently but then snap back and remind himself that that wasn't the game du jour. Hlllary was the main act. He couldn't play it for her. At some point, following that logic, Bill Clinton had to recognize the fundamental gifts Barack Obama was bringing to the competition. Bill knows talent. So although he had no choice but to apply pit bull ferocity to Hillary's campaign—because that is what you do—he also had to know she was up against a force of nature, a once-in-a-lifetime package of political assets and that she was not going to win this one.
The Clintons love to win almost as much as they love to breathe. But it is preposterous for the feuding cable freak shows to assert with such certainty that they now prefer Obama to lose.
As they leave Denver, the Clintons, having said they whole-heartedly support Obama, are now going to have to prove it with a campaign effort so energetic, no one in the Democratic hierarchy has any doubt about their sincerity. Their political futures depend on them delivering the goods. More to the point, if they can deliver Hillary's Appalachian Catholic women (for lack of a better term), that discernable enough fact will place both Obama and the Democratic Party, for which Bill intends to play patriarch for at least another twenty years, in their ever-asting debt.
The Clintons love power, and indebtedness is power.






President Clinton was a very popular speaker last night but he wasn't at his best when it came to stumping for Senator Clinton. I expected him to be her greatest asset but his charisma was not in evidence when it could have been so effective, buoying her hard, earnest edginess. The charges and responses from both camps this spring were small and aggravating, but your pit bull theory lets President Clinton off the hook for some pretty bizarre and detrimental behavior during the campaign. Do you believe his was a strategy thoughtfully designed to win the presidency for Mrs. Clinton?
LAMBERT: I wrote that off to sheer frustration. As I say HE wasn't the candidate. He was in a support mode in a race umbilically linked to him, but he couldn't dance the dance. Hillary doesn't have his skills. Additionally, Bill -- the ultimate pro politician -- had to recognize pretty early on that Obama DID have his skills (and then some). He was essentially exhausting himself for an act that he knew wasn't going to beat a phenom.
Posted by: JC on August 28, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I can't stand the politics of Bill Clinton - so my Appalachian* Catholic wife asked,"Why are you watching him ?" I replied,"Because he is probably the best public speaker of our time."
*not really Appalachian, but like Bill Clinton, why let facts ruin The Moment ?
LAMBERT: Well ... ed ... old Bubba has serious competition for "best public speaker of our time" from young Mr. Obama. But what Clinton brings, now, is the gravity of not just beating the Republicans' pack of mongrel attack dogs, repeatedly, but the gravitas that comes with an economic record and an international reputation (very big when fighting the "war" on terror) that holds up remarkably well in a game of compare and contrast. It is infuriating, isn't it?
Posted by: ed leyland on August 29, 2008 at 7:35 AM
I have to take umbrage with your statement: Politics is a game of reading and playing perpetually shifting strategies.
The shifting and flip-flopping may be true for some politicians but others have convictions and stand by them. They do what they feel is right regardless of popular sentiment. I respect THOSE people. I'm not interested in supporting someone who wavers with every poll. Don't tell me what you think I want to hear; tell me what you really believe. Then, as a thinking constituent, I'll make the decision that lines up with my values.
The poll-driven politician may be popular at the time but he or she is weak and lacks integrity. Those are not qualities I want in my government. We should expect more.
LAMBERT: There's the game of altruistic public service ... and then there's the game of politics. Each needs a dose of the other. One to produce relevant legislation, the other to get and stay in office.
Posted by: Tami on August 29, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Bill Clinton clearly has been eclipsed.
Ok, ok... I understand there is a argument to be made on the basis of preferred style. Bill Clinton has the "Ah shucks, there I went and did it again..." (tongue firmly in cheek) bubba-boy border state charm and you can't compare apples and bananas but... throughout this campaign season, Obama has out and out soured above the entire field, Bill and Hillary included, it delivering memorable speeches.
Before the primary season got underway, I think almost everybody assumed that Obama was a smart man who struck a strong profile but few expected him to win. The word on the street was Obama would finish second or third to Clinton and Edwards but make a respectable showing for a future run for the White House. And maybe he'd be considered for V.P. if Hillary had her way. Maybe.
Two things changed all that, in my opinion: First, the voters really responded to the idea of wholesale change and Hillary was NOT change but just more of the old-style politics of Bush-Clinton dynasties; and Second, Obama's speeches inspired hope, raised the aspirations for the future and stepped way beyond the petty cut-and-parry of Texas and Arkansas politics were baring bloody knuckles and "take no prisoners" is considered cowboy boot stomping entertainment.
When I watched Bill Clinton's speech on Wednesday I felt like we'd been thrown back to a bygone era. Imagines of Newt dancing at the bedside of his dying wife and telling her he was leaving her for another woman were whirling in my brain. Irony and gotcha one-liners rang hollow like Y2K warnings and promises technology convergence, mapping teh internet highway, of video-on-demand.
And then I was blown away by the song played on stage after Bill finished his speech "Addicted to Love" by Robert Palmer. It all felt so, well, 1990s if you ask me.
LAMBERT: Every election is about change, but Obama has a significant number of people believing that he is so qualitatively different it will actually happen.
Posted by: Robb on August 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Sarah Palin? The wife of the Monty Python dude? Leave it to McSenile to be on the cutting edge of humour.
LAMBERT: He considered Mrs. Cleese, but she walked funny.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on August 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I respectfully disagree: Obama has the better set of pipes, Clinton is the better public speaker.
LAMBERT: Willie Mays was the best all around player, but Ted Williams was the greatest hitter.
Posted by: jed leyland on August 29, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Easy fella, you're treading on my area of expertise.
I believe you stated some agreement with that noted baseball historian, Nick Coleman, that Roger Maris should be in the hall of fame.
Can't go wrong with either Willie or Teddy, however....
Posted by: 108 on August 31, 2008 at 4:48 PM