General discussion

Clinton's speech

Even a lot of Republicans are admitting he nailed it, and may just have cost Romney the election.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/politics/dnc-five-things-day-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

"Tonight, when everybody leaves, lock the door," GOP strategist Alex Castellanos said on CNN immediately after the speech ended. "You don't have to come back tomorrow. This convention is done. This will be the moment that probably re-elected Barack Obama. Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once. It was going too far left. He came in and took it to the center. He did it again tonight."

Mike Murphy, another leading Republican operative, tweeted his praise.

"Highly effective Clinton speech. Aimed right at voters Obama needs," Murphy wrote.

And then: "A master's class in using (select) factoids and policy ideas to 'explain' and score big politically. Mitt's speech should have done this."

Forget that Clinton strayed from his prepared remarks repeatedly and was not even halfway through his speech when the clock struck 11 p.m. on the East Coast -- the Big Dog delivered.


Despite his personal failings I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat if it was legal for him to run.

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Clinton's speech
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Clinton's speech
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
It's nice when the fact checkers say the speech was all true
- Collapse -
Not necessarily........
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-bill-clintons-speech-and-other-democrats-at-the-convention-in-charlotte/2012/09/06/55b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-clinton-claims-compromise-stretch-043255807--election.html

An early preview factcheck from Washington Post for BO's speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/previewing-the-facts-in-obamas-acceptance-speech/2012/09/05/d9468cf2-f7a3-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html

If you really listened carefully to Clinton's speech, you can tell that he was backing the Democratic party to win again in November (that doesn't mean he was actually backing BO)....if BO doesn't produce real beneficial results in four more years, it will be difficult, if not impossible for Hillary to run and win on a Dem ticket after 8 years of BO failures and financial destruction for the US. Clinton also didn't really do much bashing of Romney....he soft pedaled when he could have gone hardcore against him. Clinton didn't do damage to Romney, but he also didn't do much to help BO. He walked a very fine line between the two and did it with the same 'speechifying' ability Clinton has always possessed. He walked off the stage clean and with the public's approval from both sides, just like always. HIS likeability polls still stay high.....
- Collapse -
I really listened to the speech....

.....and he specifically referred to Obama, what a good president he's been and how we should hope that Obama wins again. You can tell yourself he "wasn't actually backing BO" but his words said otherwise.

- Collapse -
The way he can frame his words

is what made him what he is today.......popular with people even though he spins quite effectively. The lawyer background makes it work and he does know how to work that quite well.

For him to 'convince' the Dem base that NOBODY, including himself, would have been able to fix the economy and jobs in four years is bull.......Reagan did it in THREE years by getting the Carter double-digit unemployment rate down to 7.5%, lowering taxes, cutting back regulations, cutting a 21% interest rate, cutting an 18% inflation rate, eliminating gas lines....and ridding the people of Carter's malaise. Carter had $500B in revenue.......Reagan got to $1T revenue....all with 'trickle down economics'. Reagan lowered the unemployment rate by 12%......BO has had a GAIN in unemployment from 2007-2012 of 19% (higher with today's numbers....and don't give me the crap about Bush....BO OWNS this all now, just like Reagan OWNED Carter's crap and never blamed Carter publicly once Reagan took the Oval Office like cry-baby BO does every speech).

What BO was attempting to do last night was convince people that CLINTON's goals were the same as HIS....unfortunately for BO, Clinton pulled it off because he was willing to turn from hard left to soft right/middle and work with the Republicans. BO doesn't have that ability or desire. Does he think the Independents he needs to garner votes from have that short a memory?

- Collapse -
You overlooked....

.....the huge increases in both the debt and taxes during Reagan's term. As Lloyd Bentsen said, anyone can write a lot of bad checks and create the illusion of prosperity.

Both Clinton and Obama are much closer to the center than you will ever admit about either of them.

And IMO Yassir Arafat was more open to compromise than the Republicans have been.

- Collapse -
Arafat and BO....Peace Prize winners....LOL

As for writing bad checks and creating the illusion of prosperity....that's exactly what BO is attempting to promise for the people by using 'credit card' debt for the wars that weren't funded and 'transferring' those 'savings' to investing in crap again. HELLLLOOOOO??????????? Talk about 'having your cake and eating it, too' politics. This guy is a freaking nightmare.

- Collapse -
Not that the presidency is ever a piece of cake

but I think Clinton took over during better economic times, a strong military and didn't have to deal with major disasters. And, in defense of Carter, he did get to deal with a rather stunned US that was still reeling from the Vietnam War and loss of confidence in the office of president when Nixon left under shameful conditions. Each president presides over different times and each leader has different strengths and weaknesses. It's difficult for the people to always match the right person for what is coming down the pike as well. We don't always do a good job either.

- Collapse -
Clinton came after

Bush I....Desert Storm....Clinton's first term was a mess with him trying to accomplish policies that were similar but nothing so radical as BO's. He was able to work with Republicans during his second term and got it to be successful and bring in millions of jobs again and correct the economy. But he was dragged into going back to the center kicking and screaming.

Kind of strange to me though that for a Dem platform that was heavily geared toward "We're all for Women's Rights", they would have to turn to a man who was impeached over having an extremely loose zipper and lying about it to Congress. He's got charisma that still connects, and I'll never figure out how.

Carter came after Nixon, but was another inexperienced hack whose only expertise was farming and having a drunk for a brother.....he was totally out of his element when the hostage taking happened with Iran (the leader of that hostage taking is now the A-JAD leader of the country), and was much better at building homes for Habitat. He has no credibility whatsoever and the Dems still invite him to the party...which only goes to show you how far down the Dem Party has traveled.

- Collapse -
Actually, Ford slipped between Nixon and Carter

and not everyone was happy about his giving his former boss a pardon. At that point, the Democrats weren't going to lose the next election. It may have been that Carter was the only one in the party who wouldn't take a beating for having a corrupt past.

- Collapse -
OK...correction:

Bush 41's economy was stronger in his last two years than Carter's first two years. I honestly can't remember what Ford was like as president....other than the stupid pardon, he must have been pretty ineffectual for the two years and five months he served. I think he probably spent most of his time trying to explain the pardon.

In any event, Clinton's economy worked because in 1994 he cut capital gains tax, introduced welfare reform, and he balanced the budget repeatedly....all by actively working with Republicans. BO doesn't work with Republicans (to Eric Cantor right from the start "Elections have consequences; I won") and has not even worked with Democrats all that well unless it comes time to browbeat them into submission 'for the sake of the party'. BO's Kensian agenda won't work in the USA but he will always keep trying to fit that square peg into a round hole, and he doesn't care that he's destroying the corners of the square.

- Collapse -
Clinton came after the first clear cut US military victory..

... since WW II.

Carter came after a president quit in disgrace, another president gave the disgraced president a pardon (in my opinion, the right move), and the US was chased out of Viet Nam.

- Collapse -
It's not what you get

It's what you do with it.

- Collapse -
You are absolutely right !

W Bush had a budget surplus when he took over...

- Collapse -
and Obama got a minor recession

and turned it into a Depression.

- Collapse -
you really need to get a calendar.

Maybe it will help you keep track of when economic crashes happen, who the president is when it happens, when elections happen, when it's time for you to hang it up...

Wink

- Collapse -
He was concentrating on electing Congressional Democrats,

and Senate candidates and Governors as well.

As noted, he made many references to President Obama during his speech so he certainly wasn't distancing himself.

Boy he's almost a 19th Century Speaker. Incredibly well phrased, Incredibly well organized, a fabulous composition or persuasive statements. He may be better than either Kennedy, or Franklin Roosevelt.

Rob

- Collapse -
It does appear that Clinton is still the de facto

head of the Democrat party. Personally, I don't see Obama as being the heir apparent.

- Collapse -
Odd you should say that because

....there's an ad going on here in Maryland with Clinton. He does most or all of the talking, Obama says nothing at all in the ad except for the endorsement at the end "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message". It's obviously aimed at the white voters with Obama mostly in the background for a few parts of it. It has almost a plantation feel about it, like Clinton talking about what a great butler that Obama is and the only thing missing is the serving tray. I'm looking at youtube to see if I can find it.

found it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdl2MmLxDPI

- Collapse -
A "plantation feel about it" ????

James, I swear by All That Is Holy, I really have doubts about your sanity sometimes.

Shocked

- Collapse -
(NT) You can really drag in to oddest stereotypes and use of them
- Collapse -
maybe you can come up with a different one?

because the ad seems more about Clinton, done by Clinton with a bit of lip service about Obama, who appears in the background throughout it.

- Collapse -
Which has zero to do with race

Ads like that are done all the time. Only you would (try to) find something racial in it.

- Collapse -
com'n Josh

It's the same reason "Uncle Joe" is the VP. It's an effort to reel in some more of the white vote. I'm just surprised how subdued the Obama portion of the ad was. It was like he was keeping his proper distance in the background, and only speaking when appropriate, etc. When I saw it I was actually surprised and wondered if anyone else would notice it. I seriously doubt I'm the only one that saw it as a throwback in time.

- Collapse -
I'm sure you not the only one in America

Just the only one here in SE.

If Obama had chosen a black running mate you'd have ripped him for making some kind of separatist statement. The "white vote" was never a problem, except maybe at your house.

- Collapse -
compare it to this ad
- Collapse -
I had hoped we'd be beyond trying to find

hidden racial overtones in places they don't exist but it's obvious at least our media stretches to do so. It would be worse if ad men tried to create such subliminal messages. They run that same ad here in Ohio and I really don't see the racism. What I see is some people recalling Clinton's presidency as being the new "Good Old Days" and the ad men wanting to capture what might be a fleeting moment before it's too late. So far, the world hasn't ended here but people forget that, when Clinton left, we were on the edge of a brewing crisis that just happened to land in the lap of the next president. We choose who to fault in odd ways. It can be either the person who makes the mess or the one that fails to clean it up properly and we can sometimes switch directions without drawing a breath.

- Collapse -
I don't see any racial overtones in that ad, but

I DO have to question how much sucking up BO had to do in order to get Clinton's endorsement in the first place since 1. Clinton accused him during the 2008 primaries of using the race card against him 2. Clinton actually said that "not long ago BO would be carrying my bags" and 3. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about having sex with 'that woman' and was on a stage with a DNC platform using women's rights as part of their agenda. I don't care how much charisma Clinton has, BO had to be desperate to make that call.

- Collapse -
More revisionism, Toni

He was impeached for lying during a deposition for a civil lawsuit, not for lying to Congress (he was never called to testify in front of Congress, one of the few things that Congress didn't try to do to him).

People grow and change, Toni. The hug Clinton and Obama exchanged after the speech looked genuine enough to me.

- Collapse -
It just seemed to hark back to

an old stereotype. In the South when a black person needed some help dealing with a white person, especially in business, he'd get a different white man he was on good terms with to run interference or front for him, to smooth things over or get the transaction across. It made survival sense in such times, but these aren't supposed to be such times, yet the ad gave me that same old feeling of following that practice from years before. It's like the one white guy telling the other, "he's a good one, you can trust him to do the job right..." before the other would hire him. Getting jobs by reference or endorsements was the way to do it then. Maybe it's because I grew up in segregation I see it, but I think anyone in the South born before 1965 or maybe 1960 might see it that way too. Like I said, I was not surprised Clinton did an ad for Obama, but in the way the ad was presented.

- Collapse -
a better approach

if they wanted to avoid the old stereotype would have been to have both Clinton and Obama sitting together, talking back and forth as equals, about Clintons' time and how Obama is doing the same things to continue the success, etc.

That would be more powerful than Clinton doing all the talking and a few shots of Obama as if in the background, saying nothing, other than the now required "I approve this message".

CNET Forums