« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Bill Clinton to Speak at Democratic Convention
No sooner does the Pew Research Center publish findings of "Obama fatigue," than in walk the Clintons, as if on cue.
Senator Hillary Clinton is noncommittal about whether she'll pursue a roll-call vote at the Democratic convention in Denver.
And CNN reports that President Bill Clinton will speak at the convention on Wednesday, August 27, the "night of the vice presidential nominee's speech."
Wednesday is also the night of the vote.
UPI reports that President Clinton was personally invited to speak by Senator Obama.
Yet despite the significance of this development, esteemed oracles like Jonathan Alter persist in predicting that Senator Clinton is planning a "Greek drama" for the convention. Sen. Clinton had used the expression herself to mean that the custom of placing one's name in nomination has long existed, but the media's skill in turning her words against her is an occupational reflex.
Alter (among other oracles, like Chuck Todd), has a problem understanding what Bill meant when he said, "You can argue that nobody is ready to be president. . . . You can argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can be fully ready for the pressures of the office."
I don't have a problem understanding his statement. If Jimmy Carter or Al Gore had said it, no one would notice. Sen. Obama had nothing but kind words for the former president. And as for Greek dramas at the convention, Obama said, "I think we're looking for energy and excitement."
Excitement, rather than fatigue, appears to be guaranteed.
Now I wish I were going to Denver.
Comments (70)
Unlike, it seems, many Obama supporters, I have no problem with what Clinton said when viewed in full context.
That said, folks like you have been praying for a "Greek drama" at the convention since Wisconsin. The media's been looking for it because they love talking about the Clintons and nothing much is happening right now. Not much drama except that which folks would like to create for themselves, it seems.
August 8, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't pray for anything, especially not Greek dramas.
Since we are well past Wisconsin, I guess it's time to note my current position: I'm at peace with the fact that Hillary is not the nominee for president. I'll be fine if she's not the VP nominee. Although I'm curious about what would happen, I'm also fine if she doesn't seek a roll-call vote.
I'm still a devoted Hillary fan. I still think she'd make the best president (and vice president). However, even if I'm critical of Obama or his advisers or other individual Democrats or the party as a whole (insert laughter here), that doesn't mean that I'll vote for McCain in November (return to seriousness).
August 8, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good to hear. Happy to be proven wrong.
August 8, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You probably don't realize it, but your response seems arrogant. That kind of response makes it far less likely that anyone is going to "explain" anything to you in the future. I certainly wouldn't bother. Instead, I'd ask you where you picked up the "Greek drama" meme and what you think it implies.
August 8, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not following. I can't even say that I'm happy to be proven wrong without being called arrogant? I know this poster's rantings from previous threads, and frankly, I was going off of past experience, not some conjecture. That said, I'm glad I was wrong, and I really haven't a clue what you get off calling me arrogant for admitting a fault and being happy about it.
Look, she wasn't getting a full-blown apology from me. Search my threads - this poster's tossed some pretty awful shit my way, and for nothing. If "Good to hear. Happy to be proven wrong" isn't humble enough for you, then c'est la vie.
Then why are you doing it now?
From her post. Did you read it, or were you in too much of a hurry to deem me arrogant?
August 8, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the shit I tossed your way had to do with Harriet Christian, right?
After getting through that, I think we're good now, Scientific. It was a catharsis. As far as I know. ;-)
August 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you forget the "what do you think it implies" part? And we'll ask the questions here.
August 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Scientific realized you had asked him a question, Billy.
August 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
RTBG -
I'd like your opinion. Do you think it's at all possible that Clinton would attempt a 'greek drama' moment at the convention? And if so, how would you feel about it?
Curious. Thanks.
August 8, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't everyone die in a Greek drama? I wouldn't like that.
I truly don't think Clinton will attempt a "Greek drama" moment at the convention. I would be shocked if she attempted it, because I think the momentum for that has subsided.
I'm actually wondering if she's the VP pick.
August 8, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would be shocked if she was VP pick. And I think she needs to quit worrying so much about Bill's place in history instead of making herself a priority - just for her!
In my opinion, I would prefer she had a cabinet position and be in charge of healthcare 'reform' program. I would like to see this announced at convention - and yes, I know that losing her in Senate to some wouldn't be a positive, but we know NY would put in another democrat.
Thanks for response, but still curious about how you would feel if she did attempt a 'coup'.
August 8, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would be upset about it.
August 8, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A clarification: I would be upset at an attempted "coup." But I would not be upset if Hillary insisted her name be put into nomination.
August 8, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best response ever! LOL to the point of tears :)
August 8, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket - great post! I'll respond later, but suffice to say, I regret not being able to be in Denver too and not to create havoc either. I'm hoping for a REALLY unifying event regardless of the VP pick, although I think Bill's speaking definitely on Wednesday bodes well for my dream ticket. Either way - Hillary or no Hillary as VP - it sends the message that the Clintons are fully onboard with Obama as our nominee. It's going to be freaking awesome. The GOP convention is going to be a snoozefest.
August 8, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
{fistbump}
August 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrorist!
August 8, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll concede a Ha! for that one, NCSteve. ;-)
August 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, it wouldn't have been a problem if Carter or Gore mutttered those words because both of them have supported (and eventually endorsed) Obama without talking down about him and to him, in other words, the support wasn't forced like it was for Bill. He could have said, "Of course he's ready to be president, he'll have a few eye-openers once he is president, but he is ready." His actual answer was not definitive and it should have been. Obama has done his part to live up to Clinton "arrangements" as far as I can tell so the Clintons should be playing fair as well and "do whatever they can to ensure Obama is the next presiden". IMO.
August 8, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think if Tipper or Rosalyn had run for president this year, Al and Jimmy would have likewise been hard-pressed to voice support for Obama. Do you think Bill should not have unequivocally supported his wife's historic run? My feeling is it's to Bill's credit that he was fiercely, competitively supportive of Hillary. I would have spit in disgust if he'd been noncommittal or tepid or even slightly supportive of her opponent in any way.
But Bill can't catch a break, even when he's not a schmuck to Hillary.
Meanwhile, Obama himself has clearly moved on, even if his supporters haven't, since he invited both Clintons to speak at his convention. And that's to Obama's credit.
August 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter was asked about Bills behavior on the campaign trail and said he would be campaigning just as intensely if Rosalyn was running for the office. In the same interview he said he thought Hillary should stay in until all the primaries were over
August 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been a ton of Clinton-backers that have endorsed Obama. And remember--the Democratic nominee race is over. It's simple, endorse the Democratic nominee. Unity now!
And like I acknowledged, Bill is "forced" to support Obama, I just wish he had been more enthusiastic tis all.
August 8, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Mr Blowagasket and Ms Mo; this should be a very fine convention. I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether Sen Clinton should be the running mate, but if such a choice should be made I will support that ticket enthusiastically. Those of my fellow Obama supporters who still wish to nurse a grudge against the Clintons make my head hurt. There is no percentage in an intra-party civil war on either side. There is just nothing to be gained from antagonizing Sen Clinton or her supporters, so why would we wish to do so?
August 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about MO, but it will make our lives a lot easier in MI if he puts her on the ballot. I'm certainly intrigued by the fact that she is speaking on Tuesday and Bill is speaking on Wednesday, the night the VP is nominated. Is he making the VP nomination speech? Oh, my. How clear a signal is that? Just kidding. I am so ignorant of the VP selection process that on another thread when someone said they thought Obama would pick Warner, I thought they meant John Warner. What I do know is that Obama has drawn the process out far too long.
August 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what little my opinion is worth, I agree that the process has gone on too long. I am no more a party than are you to the thoughts of the selection committee, but I am inclined to conclude from the over-long nature of it that this reflects the fact that there is no really perfect choice. Each likely candidate has real strengths and real drawbacks.
The effect of making it last this long (at least on me), however, has been to make me lose interest. I am not past the point when I could be really reviled by a poor choice (the thought of Bayh, for instance, used to leave me very cold, but now I am simply indifferent) or really enthused by a fantastic choice. Now I will simply be happy with anyone, if only in order that they might print up yard signs so that I can get them out in my neighborhood.
August 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You had another bad poll today. I think the delay is hurting him. He's lost momentum in some swing states.
August 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess, for whatever little that is worth. "Momentum" is (in my humble opinion) over-rated. If you look at the Pollster.com trendlines to the right of the EC threads, McCain and Obama's national numbers have been bouncing up and down for the past several months. These things can turn on a dime, especially when they are within the MoE (as the new Rasmussen numbers for MO are). I am still non-plused. Obviously we are not winning handily, but I am not convinced that this means that we are losing.
August 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its hard to see him selecting Hillary as vp after hiring Solis Doyle as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate. Yet at the same time its hard to see why he would have Hillary speak on tuesday and Bill on Wednesday before the vp addresses the convention after selecting someone like Bayh or Kaine as vp. Its hard to see how the vp wouldn't seem diminished in comparison to the star power of the Clintons.
The story of the convention is now looking like Obama, the Clintons, and as an aside, the vice president. That doesn't seem good unless he is planning on choosing Hillary. But I still just can't see it happening.
Well he did say he wanted excitement at the convention and he surely will have that. I'll venture a prediction that after years of declining ratings this years convention will be a blockbuster media event.
August 9, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is all about the Clintons now that the one has cut and run again to vacation in Hawaii.
Like Hillary , the old man will stay on the campaign trail.
Yep, folks are sick of the one.
August 8, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And like Sen Clinton, fat lot of good it will do him. The idea that a vacation is a waste of time is just more the sick outgrowth of the misbegotten "Protestant work ethic." Getting enough rest is a necessary part of maintaining maximum productivity. Working ceaselessly without rest just serves to ensure that you put out a larger volume of poor quality output. It is possible to take too much vacation, to be sure, but one week in August hardly strikes me as excessive.
So you keep informing us, but the polling data refuse to conform themselves to your preferred narrative.
August 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the old man already put out a statement on the war in Georgia.
Nothing from the one.
August 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure that the war in south Ossetia is a matter of pressing concern to most voters in American swing states...
August 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to be President of the United States, and the world's second largest nuclear arsenal's owner has tanks headed for a soverign country's capital, you better be concerned no matter how it plays in Michigan. And you ought to let the rest of the world know what you're thinking.
August 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. If you are president of the United State, you had better be concerned regardless of how well it play in Michigan or Ohio. If you are merely running for the office of President, however, you really only need to be concerned with how it plays in Michigan or Ohio (or other such swing states). I suppose it is possible that there are swing-state voters out there thinking (not unreasonably) about the potential threat looming if Russia enters the fray, but I would not bet a lot of money on that possibility. Smarter money would be on the prospect that most voters shrug the whole thing off with blithe indifference, so if McCain wants to waste his time showing off his ability to pronounce the names of Caucasian villages to an electorate which regards such things as irrelevant, it is his funeral and I am happy to cheer him on as he rides the hearse.
August 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In point of fact, Russia has the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
August 8, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, gotalife, I'm looking forward to what Clinton is going to say to the cadaver (he's way past old man state) about him using her critique of Obama's readiness to lead in his ads. Obviously, they're running those quotes out now in hopes of keeping her off the ticket. She's going to have to spank the cadaver's butt his coming week. Be interesting to see which paddle she uses. I think she'll use the I challenged Obama and he stepped up while you were stepping down paddle. What do you think?
August 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait. She's supposed to stump for Obama today in NV. Stay tuned. ;-)
August 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think this will happen.
Having said that, I'd dearly love to be wrong.
August 8, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she will use the unity argument until after the convention and start working on the next cycle.
After both Clintons being labeled racists, I doubt you will see the fighters we like.
August 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to buy the left a home and furnish it with love,
Grow apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves.
I'd like to teach the left to sing in perfect harmony,
I'd like to buy the left a Coke and keep it company.
August 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You give a little love and it all comes back to you
(la la la la-la-la-la)
You're gonna be remembered for the things that you say and do
(la la la la-la-la-la)
You give a little love and it all comes back to you...
I love that commercial.
August 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to buy the Left a club and teach them how to swing it.
Bash neocons and guys named John. Pick up a brick and fling it.
I'd like to teach the Left to cheat just like the goddamn Right does.
I'd like to rip the Right to shreds and not give a shit whether it rhymes or not.
August 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure that I quite endorse the sentiments that underlie this, but it did make me laugh, so I tip my glengary to you nonetheless.
August 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with the sentiments either, but Alex was being so mellow, it just called for a crude parody.
August 8, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Obama fatigue" poll is one of the silliest pieces of pseudo-statistical research I've seen in a long time.
48% are sick of hearing about Obama, and we conclude that Obama fatigue is a problem? Doesn't that mean that 52% are NOT sick of hearing about Obama, i.e. a majority of respondants?
August 8, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeezz dude, the link to the poll was right there in the first post. Didn't you think it might be a good idea to click on it and check it out before you decided to spout nonsense about it.
August 8, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeeezz "dude", I could ask you the same question.
August 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go agio, you found the link and figured out how to click on it. Good for you! Now the next part is a little bit harder. You probably didn't notice but there are 8 columns in that poll not 1. To extract any meaningful information from the poll you'll have to look at all 8 columns.
August 8, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eight columns of data don't change the fact that the TOTAL percentage of respondents who feel they are hearing too much about Obama is less than 50%, which is the point I was making all along.
The fact that fewer people feel that McCain is being overexposed is meaningless. According to this poll more people feel that Obama is getting just enough exposure than they do about McCain. The breakdown by party holds no surprises either: Republicans want to hear more about McCain, Democrats want to hear more about Obama.
So we are left with the milquetoast conclusion that, "if anything, Pew's respondents said they want to hear more, not less about the Republican candidate."
If anything indeed. It's a silly poll based on a silly line of questioning.
I'm not sure what other conclusion you are trying to draw, or what other point you are trying to make.
August 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Jimmy Carter or Al Gore had said it, no one would notice.
Maybe you don't want me here. If not, let me know and I'll slink away.
But as long as I am here, I will point out that neither Carter nor Gore WOULD HAVE said what Pres. Clinton said. They both would have known that it would be perceived as (because it was intnended to be) damnation via faint praise.
Whatever one's opinion of Pres. Clinton, he is no stupido, nor even of middlin' to high intelligence, where it comes to politics. He's the Heisenberg if not the Einstein of his field. He knew exactly what he was saying, he meant it to be interpreted as it has been interpreted. Hell, he probably stayed up the night before practicing the tone and deciding where to put the emphasis to make it sound like "Well, he might be better than the other guy."
August 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it that you're here, tankard. I mean that.
For some reason (although I can't think of an exact quote to prove my association), Jimmy Carter came to mind when I read Bill's words. I feel Carter often sticks his foot in his mouth, so I could imagine him saying something equally sphinx-like about Obama. And I personally think Al Gore is just plain awkward on some topics (like praise). I like Carter and Gore well enough, but in my mind, I could honestly hear similar words of explanation coming from either of them. But I don't think their words are ever magnified and parsed like Bill's are (except when Carter talks about the plight of the Palestinians, no surprise).
I checked some conservative blogs, and the Hillary "coup" meme and hyper-emphasis on Bill's words seem to be getting lots of play there. American Thinker is one such site; Right Wing Nut House is another. Although I may get called a McCain troll on this site whenever I criticize Obama, I do not get my talking points from the right, and it's my personal policy to not buy into the hysterical smears that come from the right. Therefore, I take every negative news story about the Clintons with a grain of salt because I think those stories are skewed for dramatic effect and highest potential TV ratings. But that's me.
I can see how Obama fans would read Bill as too stingy with his answers about Obama. But as with any Clinton story that concerns Obama, I have learned to gauge my reaction by Obama's, and his reaction to both Clintons seems to be very good these days, don't you agree?
August 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that Sen. Obama is being very gracious to the Clintons. He has nothing but the best reasons to be so.
But you didn't address my point that the Pres. was damning with faint praise and doing so intentionally. Apparently you disagree. How so?
August 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me, "damning with faint praise" means something very specific. So, no, I don't think Bill was damning Obama with faint praise.
Whatever he did, I think it's a "guy thing."
August 8, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm damned insulted that nobody commented on my re-write of "I want to teach the world to sing." I'm just ungodly proud of that, and nobody reacted.
What's a girl gotta do to get kissed around here?
August 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I just read it for the first time and it's great!
Don't want to touch that second question.
August 8, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
“You can argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can be fully ready for the pressures of the office."
I don't have a problem understanding his statement.
Then explain why Bill Clinton went to North Carolina and stated that Hillary would be ready on day 1?
August 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he was planning to give her his presidential crib sheet?
August 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that Edwards admits his affair, I have to wonder what Obama is hiding thinking he can get away with it like Edwards.
August 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, this looks like fun. Let me try:
Now that Edwards admits his affair, I have to wonder what McCain is hiding thinking he can get away with it like Edwards.
Now that Edwards admits his affair, I have to wonder what Clinton is hiding thinking she can get away with it like Edwards.
Now that Edwards admits his affair, I have to wonder what Clinton is hiding thinking he can get away with it like Edwards.
Now that Edwards admits his affair, I have to wonder what Gotalife is hiding thinking he can get away with it like Edwards.
This whole approach reminds me of Flannery O'Connor's quip that "the Freudian technique can be applied to anything at all with equally ridiculous results."
August 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny MO, Funny!
August 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the thing is, (and columnist Art Hoppe I think it was from the SF Chronicle years ago brought this up), that Republicans don't have sex and Democrats do.
Now I laughed when I read that column, but in some ways it was true, except that Republicans do have sex - gay sex.
And here's another gem. A friend of mine became friends with David Corn of The Nation years ago, and he told her quite seriously that Bush Sr. had a mistress - and that she looked just like Barbara Bush. Of course I have no way of confirming that, but apparently Corn swore it was widely known in Washington. Go figure.
Anyway, this may not apply to McCain, but who knows? Why marry an heiress? It surely isn't for the sex.
August 8, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, that was known/suspected/rumored in some areas outside Washington as well. I actually met the woman it was supposed to be and ....truth! .... she did look rather like Barbara Bush!!
August 8, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pew Research Group skews conservative. They're trying to start something out of nothing, inventing "Obama fatigue." Ain't true. Ignore it.
August 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pew Research Center is a respected nonpartisan fact-gathering organization that does not make policy recommendations like think tanks do. Progressive watchdogs like Media Matters quote the Center's polls and research all the time. Check out their coverage of the 2008 election and see for yourself. Do you have any basis for making the claim that it "skews conservative"?
August 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very sad that Democrats would allow a narissistic ass of the 20th century speak to the 21st century party... aren't the days of allowing segregationists to call themselves democrats like George Wallace over???? Is it not time for the party of purge itself of these dinosaurs? Primary voters seemed to think so.
August 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious! Half of the primary voters felt just fine about Hillary, merlot. The difference in popular vote was 0.1%.
Nice try at revisionism, though.
August 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally unhinged...
August 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. He just hates Hillary.
August 8, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fucking awesome Tankard. And I interrupted my holiday to say that. Maximum points.
Besides, Alex was waaaaaay outta line with that mellow shit.
August 8, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to everyone who stopped by.
August 8, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment