|
January 22, 2008
The guy who wasn't in last night's debate (but might as well have been....)
I'm talking about Bill Clinton, of course. He might as well have been in last night's debate. Really and truly, it's almost as if he was there. Anyway, even if he wasn't there, his strategic emotion certainly was: ...while large swaths of the American opinion elite suffer from Clinton fatigue, the Democratic primary electorate does not. Reading the New Hampshire primary exit poll, we find that 83 percent of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of President Clinton, and that Senator Clinton beat Senator Obama among these voters by 10 points. By contrast, among the 16 percent of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire who held an unfavorable view of President Clinton, Senator Obama won 50 percent to 13 percent. Another exit poll question asked voters whether they would vote for Bill Clinton if he were eligible and on the ballot. Most voters said no, they would vote for the candidate whom they supported anyway -- and Obama won these voters handily. But 37 percent of respondents said yes, they would vote for Bill Clinton if he were on the ballot -- and Senator Clinton won these voters by 34 points. It was understood among New Hampshire Democrats that, whatever Senator Clinton's qualifications and talents, a vote for her is, in a way, another vote for her husband.Matthew Continetti goes on to describe the mechanism of the controlled outbursts, and how they work strategically: the former president's "outbursts" serve a dual purpose: they lend the impression that Senator Clinton is the insurgent running against the media-supported Obama, while also creating the illusion that it is the former president, not his wife, who is actually the candidate for the Democratic nomination. Far from hurting Senator Clinton -- who also understands how to deploy strategic emotion, as we saw before the New Hampshire Democratic primary -- former President Clinton effectively has rallied a coalition of Democrats to her cause.As to how the strategic emotion played out last night, the issues became muddled as Obama tried to debate Hillary, only to find that he was really debating Bill. It shows in the transcript: CLINTON: You did. You gave a great speech in 2002 opposing the war in Iraq. That was not what the point of our criticism was.Not "her" criticism. "Our" criticism. Then, a bit later: The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote.Under the circumstances, I think the use of the word "we" and "the last 10 to 15 years" constitute clear references to Bill, and the implied interchangeabilty of the two. Furthermore, Obama never said he liked the ideas of the Republicans over the past 10-15 years. This were read into Obama's Reagan remark by the Clintons, who (apparently in their mutual megalomania) believe Obama's simple observation about Ronald Reagan is an attack on "their" (and I use the term loosely) later admininstration. I think this mutual megalomania (which I've called "comegalomania") was the driving force behind much of Hillary's attack in last night's debate, placing Obama on trial for his arrogance in having dared to question the Clinton legacy: Obama's candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question the Bill Clinton legacy by making it seem ... not really such a big deal.Author Eugene Robinson argues that Obama's real debate is with the Clinton legacy, and that this is seen as intolerable arrogance: ...implicit in [Obama's] campaign is a promise, or a threat, to eclipse Clinton's accomplishments. Obama doesn't just want to piece together a 50-plus-1 coalition, he wants to forge a new post-partisan consensus that includes "Obama Republicans" -- the equivalent of the Gipper's "Reagan Democrats." You can call that overly ambitious or even naive, but you can't call it timid. Or deferential.Ah, but it's not his wife that Bill is defending; it's also his legacy. Like it or not, Bill Clinton was an integral part of last night's debate, and a major reason the sparks flew. Obama's admission that it was hard to tell whether he was debating Bill or Hillary was very telling. That there was clearly a joint attempt to put words in Obama's mouth only heightens the confusion. I see no easy way to resolve the problem. Clearly, Bill Clinton has become part of the debate. Perhaps it would be more fair to let him participate directly. It would certainly be more honest. If Obama is in fact calling the Clinton legacy into question, then the two of them should debate. I realize I said that Bill Clinton might as well have been there last night, but it's unfair to pronounce him the might-as-well winner under might-as-well circumstances. So, enough with the "might-as-wells" already! Rather than continue the fiction, I'd like to see a real Obama-Clinton debate. How would it be done? Should Obama challenge him directly? (Surely, Bill would not refuse a chance to defend his legacy...) Any ideas? posted by Eric on 01.22.08 at 02:32 PM
Comments
Eric, you did a great job on the debate report for PJM. Enjoyed reading it .. just clicked in from there. Here's something you might not be aware of. When Edwards (who really does deserve to be called the Breck Girl) did his sorrowful schtick about how squabbling between Hillary and Obama wasn't going to help the poor, he was channeling Bill Clinton! That's exactly what Clinton did in the 1996 debate with Bob Dole when Dole quite accurately noted the longtime Clinton practice of sleazy fundraising. I think Bill's exact line was "No attack ever fed a hungry child". Indeed, many of the Breck Girl's riffs are like Bill Clinton outtakes. Politics isn't getting any less weird. CJ · January 22, 2008 06:14 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Taking sexism seriously
There went the best The guy who wasn't in last night's debate (but might as well have been....) Hillary the Cruel does Obama the Kind Flailing Each Other With Ovaries And Melanin Clinton machine stifles dissent? ITER Is Big Smash! Crash! Woof! Boom! Sharpening the knives of identity politics Government Men Can't Dance
Links
Site Credits
|
|
She could be using the imperial "We" or "Our" when she says, "You did. You gave a great speech in 2002 opposing the war in Iraq." That was not what the point of our criticism was," but I don't think so. Even if she is, it does not speak well for her as she is not a queen nor is the U.S. a monarchy. What she is trying to do is ride Pres. Clinton's popularity while refuting some of his policies and statements. In the end Obama is right and Pres. Bill Clinton's legacy will be little remembered or talked about except for his impeachment for perjury.