James Fallows, Why Bill Clinton’s Speeches Succeed:
Because he treats listeners as if they are smart.
That is the significance of “They want us to think” and “The strongest argument is” and “The arithmetic says one of three things must happen” and even “Now listen to me here, this is important.” He is showing that he understands the many layers of logic and evidence and positioning and emotion that go into political discussion — and, more important, he takes for granted that listeners can too.
Joe Patrice at Recess Appointment, Bill Clinton — No, He Wasn’t This Good Before:
[…] Bill Clinton is now your smartest drinking buddy, explaining his take on politics over a beer. He introduced statistical comparisons with variations of, “now, check this out…” The shrugs, the eye rolls, the pointed, yet conversational tone make him persuasive and likable, but would not meet the accepted image of a President. If President Obama dropped the “it takes a lot of brass” line, it would chafe with Americans because Presidents can’t talk that way. But your smart drinking buddy can.This is Clinton’s greatest speech because we finally see him without the cloak of the presidency, which creates a stronger bond of identification between Clinton and the audience.
Both are worth reading in full.
Violet
I’m still basking in the glow of that speech. I watched it twice.
I think this is true. He can be who he is. And he’s great.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’m glad to see other people saying it, because as a long time CLinton skeptic, I’ve been wondering if last night’s speech was better than I’d remembered him. In the run up to the speech, when they were trying to stoke the hostility legend, they showed a lot of clips of Bubba from ’08, and he was angry and off-putting, and as I remember him from the early Bush years, he was trying too hard to play the elder statesman, a little stilted and puffed up.
Ash Can
Funny you should mention this. Some commenter on LGF posted a tweet late last night tweeted by someone at the DNC after-party. This person overheard Clinton himself saying that he said things in his speech that Obama couldn’t say in his own speech, because coming from Obama they’d sound too defensive. I’m sure he’s absolutely right.
The Ancient Randonneur
As much as I like Clint Eastwood … Clint, you’re no Bill Clinton.
Dungheap
Not really relevant to the OP, but worth posting:
Lolers
Betty Cracker
I’m not sure I buy Patrice’s argument about the tone not meeting the “accepted image of a President.” I think Obama is at his most effective when he shrugs and takes on an incredulous tone in describing the latest Republican lie — “No, they really said this!” Works for me, anyway.
schrodinger's cat
It was a great speech, the conversational tone, made it feel that he was talking to you, a difficult feat when addressing an arena full of people. He does explain economics better than Obama. Obama is not as masterful when explaining economics.
MattF
And there’s a nice contrast with last week’s Republicans. That’s too complicated for the journalists who can’t hold two whole ideas in their heads at the same time, so ‘compare and contrast’ isn’t going to happen.
taylormattd
@Betty Cracker: Yeah, I think that’s true. But it may also be true that Obama as president can’t go quite as far as Bill did last night with some of the gestures and facial expressions, and perhaps one or two of the lines.
Shawn in ShowMe
Bill Clinton, at this older and wiser stage of his life, is the 21st century Mark Twain. That is all.
WereBear
The Republicans have been working hard to tell us they are the apex of Western Civilization.
That HeckuvaJob Brownie is a wonderful organizer.
That W’s swagger is based on merit.
That Mitt Romney is a visionary business leader.
That Paul Ryan is a wonk.
They have been undermining our confidence and telling us that their incompetence is the best we can do.
But the Democratic Convention is reminding people what true excellence looks like.
? Martin
I think Obama will have the same benefit when he’s no longer president. Democrats seem constantly irritated with his official statements and like him much more when he’s campaigning because I think he already has established a more relaxed air about him on the campaign trail than when he’s wearing his President hat. I suspect he’ll get even more relaxed when the hat is completely gone.
The Patrice piece points out something really insightful – that being the sports talk reference. That’s true with car enthusiasts as well and I’m sure most other things – you always assume your audience is smart enough to do what you’re doing and speak to them as if they are. And he’s right, politicians tend to be pretty shitty at doing that.
I hope Obama brings his A game tonight. He’s pretty close to putting this race to bed, and it’d be nice to focus not on the top ticket race but on Congress instead.
Steve
Clinton was always smart and always folksy, but it’s like they added a little Doc Brown to the mix. His delivery is just a little bit manic in a very entertaining way.
giltay
Douthat declares Clinton a Serious Person.
? Martin
@Betty Cracker: It depends on whether we get candidate Obama tonight or President Obama. In interviews and other settings, he doesn’t do the shrugs, etc. In stump speeches on the trail he does. This being a big venue and nationally broadcast, I’m not sure which guy is going to show up.
Can't Be Bothered
Simply put, it was the greatest political speech any of us have seen. A connecting and emotional yet substantive destruction of the Republican argument. It was incredible. And with Obama, clinton, Obama as the lineup this convention will be unrivalled for sheer virtuoso oratory. It is a thing of goddamn beauty.
KXB
Since Clinton is not running for any election, he can use language that a guy who is running for office cannot. Especially when words can be so easily taken out of context (“You didn’t build that”). Clinton clearly enjoys campaigning to a degree that Obama never will. Which is not a bad thing – it is naive to think one is interchangeable with the other.
There is also a color issue – aspiring politicians of color do not have the option of playing up their folksiness if they hope to have a future. Obama, Deval Patrick, and Cory Booker are always aware that they have to come across as re-assuring. Voters don’t want a “regular black guy” for president, they want an “exceptional” black guy. On the other side of the aisle, Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal downplay any aspect of their Indian background they can. Haley’s response to the gurdwara shooting in Wisconsin was less impressive than either Scott Walker or Paul Ryan. In the 1990’s, Jindal sounded like any other suburbanite; now he drops his g’s whenever possible.
Tom Q
@? Martin: Can you come up with one example of Obama NOT rising to the occasion with a speech? Having Clinton/Obama as a one-two punch is one of the most guaranteed-to-succeed parleys any party has ever had.
Nylund
Part of the reason I like Democrats is because, usually, they try to make an argument based on situations, facts, history, etc. Republicans too often just resort to “OMG!! The Kenyan is going to make you gay and force you to abort yer babies!”
It’s all stupid fear tactics. I’m not some four year old scared of the monster under the bed, so please don’t treat me like one. What’s amazing to me is that this actually works for the GOP, like everyone is such a pansy that the thought of a terrorist in a maximum security prison on US soil scares the poop out of them. What a bunch of friggin’ wimps. Oh no! Two ladies kissed! How will I ever survive?!
PeakVT
Clinton is viewed favorably by 69 percent of American adults, the poll shows,
That’s partially a reflection on just how bad Bush was because it’s up 12 points or so since he left office. Shrub is currently at 43/54.
Gallup has a neat comparison tool for presidential favorability while in office.
Violet
@Dungheap: Hilarious. That number is the one, true number of craziness in America. I wonder if it’s global?
? Martin
@Tom Q: His state of the unions aren’t always roof raisers. They’re much more restrained. They’re appropriate for that setting, but it’ll fall flat here if he’s overly presidential. He hasn’t given a big national campaign speech in 4 years, but he’s put himself in the mode of Presidential speaking for a while now.
It can be hard to change that persona – particularly when you know the attacks are going to be brutal. Clinton can get away with the good old boy thing a lot easier than Obama can, simply on account of race. Obama knows that if he gave precisely the same speech that Clinton just did, a solid ⅓ of the country would see it as incredibly condescending. He’s got to always walk a much finer line – and it’s safer on the Presidential side than on the campaign side.
giltay
@giltay: Bah, the link didn’t work that time. Here’s the summary: Blah blah blah serious [stop reading].
gene108
Shorter Clinton speech summary: Clinton drunk Mitt Romney’s milkshake.
jwb
@? Martin: I haven’t read any spin about what is in Obama’s speech, but I’m hoping that he makes the full pivot to nationalizing the race tonight. That seems what the Dems have been working toward most of the summer, and that has also seemed to be the implicit theme of almost all the convention speakers.
Waynski
@Tom Q:
No, but even if he knocks it out of the park as usual, the MSM will be trying like hell to say he missed the mark tonight. I think the best media reaction he can hope for is a meh.
RK
Clinton is the master salesman.
schrodinger's cat
@WereBear: I think it was last week when Bobo called the Republicans a party of strivers. ROTFLOL.
Tom Q
@? Martin: I guess I’d say for me Obama’s speeches are in the Colbertian “great or greatest?” range — I think every SOTU speech has been at least in splendid territory, certainly comparison with historical average.
I’m just saying he’s never failed in any speaking venue I can remember, even when pressure was strong (Rev. Wright, post-Giffords shooting) — he always seems to know the right note to strike. Like any president he has shortcomings, but I don’t see oratory as ever being among them.
gene108
@? Martin:
I think it’s also because Clinton is a good ‘ole boy from Arkansas, with a biological father, who died before he was born and an alcoholic stepfather. In short, President Clinton grew up a few steps away from being white trash.
Tom Q
@Waynski: You could hear that being set up last night — “Clinton sold Obama’s accomplishments better than he ever has”; “Clinton set a high bar for Obama”. The media may well try to extend this Clinton vs. Obama conflict that exists primarily in their heads. But I presume Obama will (as usual) give an excellent speech, and the audience that matters — the voters — will respond favorably, regardless of what impotent punditrs declare.
pseudonymous in nc
I like the “smart drinking buddy” line, and the point that the mantle of the presidency demands a more buttoned-up delivery.
Clinton’s like this in his Global Initiative stuff, and he’s like it elsewhere — someone told me about having a long impromptu conversation with him in an Oxford bookshop back when he was visiting Chelsea there, and someone else stumbled upon him and his security detail travelling in a French high-speed train and again, a brief “hello and thank you, Mr President” turned into a conversation. The man loves to talk.
catclub
@gene108: I think there was an Onion article that expressed how angry Obama has full justification to be at all the rest of us.
I wonder if, after he has finished being president, he will ever do the angry black man role. He could probably be very scary.
ETA: Probably not until the girls are fully grown.
AnonPhenom
I know the Big Dawg ain’t no spring chicken anymore at 66, but if Obama were to put him up for the next open SCOTUS position it would:
1) give all the wingnuts ulcers
2) give Scalia & Alito strokes
3) feel right to the rest of America (obviously excluding the 27%)
Or am I still just high from last night?
Mike
People expect BS in political venues like this, so it is disarming when someone with standing says it directly and simply. Everyone knows this fellow is well informed and has been places you will never be, seen things you will never see. Yet here he is talking strategy and deep politics to a few million people like (you expect) he does in private moments with Hillary. It’s very powerful.
Hill Dweller
Obama has certainly become far more cautious when speaking publicly since becoming President. I remember him doing a book signing and Q&A in NY just after winning his Senate race. I don’t think he had even officially become a Senator yet.
Nevertheless, Obama was masterful during the Q&A. He was funny and knowledgeable. He gave an especially good answer to a religion question, and the audience was swooning.
Remember, Obama was, by all accounts, a beloved/popular professor/lecturer at the the University of Chicago’s law school for years. He knows how to break down policy in a compelling way. I think we saw a bit of that when he destroyed the Republican caucus during that Q&A early in his term.
But with wingnuts taking everything Obama said out of context to attack him, it’s essentially been nothing but talking points in the last few years, which is a shame really.
Mnemosyne
@? Martin:
Just couldn’t resist the temptation to concern troll, could you? ;-)
MCA1
@Tom Q: I think that’s right, and at the end of the day, it’s all good for our side, because the discussion that’s happening is “Which Democrat gave the better speech and came off more impressive?” You’ll note something and someone missing from that discussion. They can talk about Clinton vs. Obama rhetorical skills from now until 2016, for all I care. Hell, you know what would be a hoot? Having Clinton and Obama debate each other on the campaign trail! I’d love to see media analysis of that. Progressive ideas dominating the damned national discourse.
The biggest thing Clinton did last night was diminish the GOP. He clowned them. He made their rising “star” look like a duncey little shit. And he made their nominee seem completely irrelevant. Whatever Obama does tonight, he’ll benefit from Bubba setting the table with “Look, folks, these Republicans are self-serving chimps trying to pitch you the same old warmed-over gruel they always have” and then, basically, proving it. POTUS looks like the only serious option after tonight.
patrick II
Besides respecting his listeners’ intelligence and being freed from the expectations of the office of the presidency, Clinton had another important thing going for him in his speech — he was telling the truth. Truth tellers have a coherence and earnestness that the Ryans of the fail to imitate.
jurassicpork
With all due respect to Slick Willie the DINO, the most uplifting yet the depressing moment of the convention last night was Liz Warren’s speech.
Hoodie
I think the “smart drinking buddy” metaphor is off the mark, because it evokes the image of some drunk moron wanking in a bar. Clinton was an expert witness for Obama (Michelle was an equally great character witness). Expert witnesses have more leeway in terms of style because they are expected to explain things fully. Clinton is a great expert witness because (1) he had a prior conflict/rivalry with Obama and thus is not viewed as an Obot; and (2) everyone knows that he knows what the fuck he is talking about, especially in domestic policy, and his talents as a speaker make it easy for folks to feel comfortable with that. I imagine that Biden will do something similar in foreign policy for Obama, as he will be a first person witness to the events of the first term. Obama is going to give the closing statement using the foundation these witnesses have laid. He certainly has the chops to pull that off, let’s hope he’s fully on. Moving to the smaller venue may actually help.
Tonybrown74
@MCA1:
I think the GOP partly did this to themselves. They were so busy pumping up Clinton in order to attack President Obama, they left themselves open for this beat down, particularly with the welfare attack ads.
Seriously, did they really not think that Bill Clinton would call them on their shit?
ShadeTail
Bill Clinton’s full DNC speech, at 48 minutes long:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrsK29T0Dhg
bob h
What if Gore had allowed Clinton to put his name in nomination, and Clinton had proceeded to do to the jejuene W. what he did to Mitt. How our history would have been different!
Brachiator
Totally disagree with this.
Part of the strength of Clinton’s speech is that he could defuse any suggestion that he was lying or partisan by the clear implication, “I have been president. I have a particular understanding about what the stakes are, what happens in discussions with Congress, who the players are.”
Clinton was deliberately putting back on the cloak of manliness (and one day womanliness) that is the presidency to speak to the American people.
This also informed some of Clinton’s sly rebuttal of the GOP attempt to imply that somehow Clinton was in their corner, or that Obama had gone sullied Clinton’s achievements.
The notion that he was just a smart drinking buddy is dumb, but typical nonsense.
gene108
@bob h:
Clinton was (is?) highly toxic in many parts of the South.
Ken Star and the GOP hounding of him didn’t destroy his Presidency, but it killed the credibility of the Democratic Party throughout the South.
The South “rebelled” against the Democrats in 2000, such that Arkansas and Tennessee both voted for Bush, Jr. In 1992 and 1996 Clinton and Gore had locked down their home states.
How to embrace Clinton in the 2000 election wasn’t so simple. As time goes by, people remember the good times of the 1990’s and forget the GOP driven “scandals”. Those “scandals” were a lot fresher in people’s minds back then and the Clinton name, despite his popularity, was still toxic in states Gore needed to win or had won as VP in 1996 and 1992.
arguingwithsignposts
@Shawn in ShowMe:
Um, no. Don’t even go there.
xian
@jurassicpork: seriously? your epistemic closure rivals that of the right.
Catsy
@xian: Purity troll is pure as the driven snow. Just don’t ask what’s been driven through it.