Skip to comments.Pundits swoon over Bill Clintonís speech
Posted on 09/06/2012 12:08:47 AM PDT by Arthurio
Bubba is back off script but on message, according to TV pundits of all stripes.
Former President Bill Clintons nearly 50-minute speech Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was praised by panelists and reporters on all three major cable-news networks.
Ive been watching this former president of the United States going back to 1992 when I was CNNs White House correspondent, and I have to tell you, this may be the best speech I have ever heard Bill Clinton deliver over all of these years, and I listened to so many of his speeches during his eight years as president, CNNs Wolf Blitzer said. Affable. Effective. As a Democrat it doesnt get any better, MSNBCs Ed Schultz said. Im sitting here and Im giddy. This is exactly what [President] Barack Obama needed.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80813.html#ixzz25ffrSOes
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
If Clinton could do what 0bama couldn’t, then 0bama can’t do what Clinton did!
Big Liar followed up Fauxcohantas.
only problem with the CLinton speech was that it was 50 minutes too long.
Im sitting here and Im giddy.”
Sure, Ed. But the big question here at the Politico is: Does that giddiness rise to the level of a tingle up your leg.
I breathlessly await the fact checkers...
Deja-vu, all over again...
Every night the key note speaker is the best speaker and speech ever according to the media.
Meanwhile, what about OBAMA’S RECORD!?????
WOO HOOO RNC!! ROMNEY CAMPAIGN!! Take off the gloves, please.
You think Americans want to hear “its the other guys fault” and “let me start what I finished because I’m not done yet” when what Obama is doing is heading down the wrong direction.
Finish what? The entire country off!!
Did the “pundits” actually watch this guy without remembering that he was impeached and disabarred for lying in court and to a grand jury, had an affair with an intern young enough to be his daughter, jerked off in the Oval Office sink, dropped his pants and told Paula Jones to kiss it, and raped Juanita Broaddrick?
Whatever... With those credentials, Clinton was definitely the perfect choice for keynote speaker at the Democrat convention. No wonder the “pundits” love him.
Interestingly, Lingle and Hirono will face off each other again this year in the US Senate race.
I watched something called Part One on youtube and then decided I couldn’t take any more. It was all lies. The wonderful way Obama has boosted our national security was the clincher.
His delivery was also almost archaic. Like those old speeches you watch and marvel at the way they delivered speeches then—so rhetorical and bombastic. Almost like a parody. Well, this wasn’t parody. This may seem trivial but his histrionic delivery just points out the entire phoniness of the speech.
It's always someone else's fault (after all, they can't blame God any more if they threw him out).
If you are wrong, shout it louder, say it more often, double down (again). (That sort of bluster gets the sheep moving wherever you want them.)
After all, the Liberal press isn't stupid, they're diabolical. They expect to be well rewarded for their efforts and have sold their souls to get where they are.
“After all, the Liberal press isn’t stupid, they’re diabolical. They expect to be well rewarded for their efforts and have sold their souls to get where they are.”
Well put; they have damaged their reputation permanently.
“Beam me up Scotty—this planet's life forms crawled out of the slime and got stupider.”
I can’t help but wonder what Clinton got in return for getting the masses all excited for Obama. I’ve heard he doesn’t like The One very much.
I like him way more than Obama...in fact, by 100 percent.
Every time Obama needs help, they drag out Bill Clinton. It’s pathetic.
No great speech ever fed a hungry child.
No great speech ever got an unemployed worker a job.
No great speech ever brought down the cost of living.
The pundits can circle jerk over the Perv’s words all they want; he still didn’t change the bad economy into a good one.
Why is Bill Clinton in a position to speak for and, one might add, to speak so persuasively for what used to be one of the great American national political parties? Why is a disgraced, impeached, perjurer, probable rapist and serial molester of women granted such a bully pulpit? Because he has been rehabilitated and he has been rehabilitated by no less than President George W. Bush and President George H. W. Bush when they were not otherwise occupied in rehabilitating Ted Kennedy.
My thesis is that these people, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, etc. must be morally destroyed so that there is nothing left for the media to exalt. Instead, presidents Bush and presidential candidate John McCain have opted to campaign as gentlemen. I cannot say that this approach is wrong, I certainly am not privy to the data they get out of their focus groups and polling but I certainly can say that if this election is lost, if the polling data immediately after the Democratic convention is really adverse, we have, like Nixon, handed the Democrats the weapon with which to bring us down.
Here is the recent reply:
I suppose that most of the FReepers who saw that outrageous episode concluded against the reaction of the live audience who persistently applauded Chris Matthews that Reince Priebus garnered more votes for his man then did Chris Matthews. I suppose most of us who saw this felt that Chris Matthews was obnoxious and overplayed his hand.
I think there is another way to look at this which suggests that perhaps the stalemate in the polls is reflective of the moral equivalency in which the Obama campaign has been able to traffic and of which this episode is illustrative. It begins with the proposition articulated by Matthews that both sides have engaged in negative campaigning. After Matthews went over the top, Brokaw, as the soul of reasonableness concedes that he does not agree with Matthews but then he seconds the proposition that the Republicans are also guilty of negative campaigning.
The problem with this is that once moral equivalence is established, the Romney campaign is severely disadvantaged. It means that Obama need pay no price, or at least no price more than Romney must pay, for the negativity which Obama himself has unilaterally generated. Obama gets to spew poison and Romney gets to share equally in the blame for cheapening our discourse. Worse, it opens the door to Obama to make even more extravagant and illegitimate claims. It provides cover for Obama to avoid an accounting. It induces the electorate, as Brokaw observed, to say, "a plague on both your houses."
I have been arguing since before McCain explicitly declined to attack Obama and muzzled Sarah Palin that Obama must be morally destroyed if McCain was to win in 2008. It now appears that Romney is embarking on the same course in which he will not attack Obama for his radicalism but Romney has actually offered that Obama is a good person but inept. Rush Limbaugh spoke about this today.
I have no doubt that Romney has experts who have more to offer by way of advice than merely their opinions. I am sure that these decisions are made not by navel gazing but by very close analysis of polling data and focus group reactions. I have no doubt that these experts have concluded from these data that this is the more prudent course, probably because it will bring in the independents. It is probable that there is data which shows that some of Obama's attacks have boomerang and brought down his heretofore high likability numbers.
On the other hand, we have D'sousa with his documentary movie arguing that Obama can be explained by reference to his anticolonial training. I believe this is a valid explanation but one which should be augmented and modified to demonstrate that he is a socialist, in other words, a Marxist black liberationist.
It is interesting that in this brouhaha Chris Matthews accused the Republicans of calling Obama a socialist. Obama actually joined the New Party-an explicitly socialist party in Chicago. Obama's associations, his appointments, his policies, his writings, his explicit statements, all point to the fact that Obama is a radical leftist, a redistributionist, certainly a Marxist and perhaps a communist. Why, oh why, must Reince Priebus sit mute and handcuffed to his chair while he is berated by the likes of Chris Matthews without the option to insist that, yes, Obama is a Marxist and that, sir, explains every policy that is wrecking America!
This is in keeping with my tagline, "attack, repeat, attack! It offers the electorate not just a series of disconnected negative allegations about Barack Obama but a coherent narrative that explains both Obama and his otherwise inexplicable policies. Why do we enter into an argument about whether Obama's policies are prudent or ill advised which we will only partially win and therefore convince only a limited segment of the electorate when we can frame and argument that puts him squarely on the defensive?
I understand that we want to keep our presidential candidate's hands clean but that is why we have surrogates. Can one believe that John Sununu, Newt Gingrich, and D'sousa himself, to name just a few possible surrogates, cannot beat back Chris Matthews and make the reality of Obama was radical character stick? As I recall, when Leo Derosher said, "nice guys finish last," he went on to win the pennant race. Ronald Reagan probably went a long way to winning the nomination when he got publicly angry and said, "I paid for that microphone!" I think our spokesmen have a right to be righteously indignant. I fear that we are more concerned about our image than the substance of the argument. I think that months and months have gone by in which the predicate could have been laid to establish Barack Obama for the radical he is. At what cost have we played Mr. nice guy? What would have been the downside, that we would be called "mean-spirited"? The country is being destroyed and we are worried about how a few hypersensitive, single white females with children react to a healthy exchange between grown men with testosterone.
I certainly hope that these polling data and those focus groups "give good data."
Years ago FReepers began calling the Democratic Party a criminal enterprise. It seemed extreme to many who could see the corruption of local Democrats and their local party, but gave the benefit of the doubt to the national party and its “noble” motives.
Today, we’ve seen a party swoon over the grifter Bill Clinton and Dan Moynihan would be a Republican. That’s how far and fast the Dems have returned to their original corrupt roots after losing their MSM cover. These little emperors have no clothes.
Most importantly, Clinton jeopardized the security of this country with his diddling with women. He was prime real estate for BLACKMAIL from other countries because of it (and how can we be sure he WASN’T blackmailed?!)
The Sink Emperor is a master of politics.
It’s a damn good thing there is a XXII Amendment.
Reminds me of David Brinkley’s reaction to Clinton’s victory speech in 1996, that “Bill Clinton never said a damn thing worth listening to”.
A Clinton speech is all the worthless fun of an especially greasy Chinese meal.
And Monica remains unseen & unheard while he continues to be worshipped. Sick world.
His speech will quickly be forgotten after the next Romney ad hits the airwaves. The DNC gave us enough material to last through the election.
Last night demonstrated one of Bill Clinton’s greatest abilities: look straight at his audience (or into the tv camera) and lie with a smiling face. Which is why he was elected for two terms. Nobody (well, Obama is close) could lie as effectively as Slick Willy.
I believe if Clinton could run again (and why not - the Constitution doesn’t mean much under dems anyway), he would be re-elected in a landslide.
I listened to his whole speech last night. In spite of all he did, I don’t hate him. He is a political pragmatist, unlike Obama. Clinton did compromise. Obama won’t. As I keep saying, I never really hated a president before Obama. The man and his disgusting wife make my skin crawl.
Has Lingle endorsed Obama this year? She is a big “Obama Republican”.
The man and his disgusting wife make my skin crawl. (Obama)
I totally agree with your post and especially this last sentence. I feel the same way. He is absolutely disgusting. I can’t believe supposedly educated people are falling for Obama. Clinton speaking for Obama was totally calculated and political for his wife. In fact, I don’t think the speech did much for Obama at all.
Lingle is Obama Republican? I’ve never heard such thing. She endorsed McCain and Romney.
Ask any dumb liberal, which would be ANY liberal, and he’ll tell you “it was just about sex”. They actually believe that when a democrat politician rapes a woman it’s about sex.
Britt Hume’s analysis was especially disgusting. He should have stayed in retirement. He brings nothing to the campaign analysis table.
Most of the Lame Steam Media would gladly wear the”spotted dress” for bill clinton.
Increasingly, this race is America vs Bizarro-America.
In the last year of Clinton's administration, in April or May, 2000, the Stock Market went into free fall and Clinton did nothing to stem the fall. This was about eight months before George W Bush took office after being elected.
Then there is that sabotage this people did when Clinton left office.
Thank you for your kind reply.
I believe there is plenty going on beneath the radar. I believe the Romney campaign will mount/is mounting a multi-faceted campaign. Never think for a second that the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. John Sununu, for example, has been a relentless pit bull.
Also, there are PACs that are ready, willing, and able to eviscerate Ubama while insulating Romney from being accused of mounting “vicious” attacks.
Isn’t it amazing how little we hear about the Romney “campaign team”? That one assclown who stuck his foot in his mouth got closed down a couple of months ago, but really, you just don’t hear much about the people actually running the Romney campaign, and advising Romney, and so forth. To me, that is a very good sign for Romney.
Being a good president (of ANYTHING) means surrounding yourself with capable people. I suspect Romney has already done that with his campaign team. I have been impressed with Romney’s ability to stay on message and commit remarkably few blunders - - and you KNOW the Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms are simply begging for Romney blunders.
You remember last cycle the Democrats advanced as the sole evidence of Obama's chops to become president the smooth campaign he ran. That was not hard to do with the media blowing friendly wind at his back and John McCain laying Palm fronds in his path.
This cycle in a very long and contentious primary battle, Romney has indeed impressed with his control of his campaign and he has managed the convention flawlessly.
If Romney can remain relatively free of blunders through the debates he will be in good position because I believe the test for him in the debates will be to look presidential, that is, to look like an acceptable alternative to Obama whom more than half the electorate would like to unload.