John,
As you can imagine, for me, last night was intensely emotional. (My measure of how seven years of working for Clinton has altered my psychic makeup: Now when I hear “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,” I don’t gag, I choke up.)
I’m guessing that last night’s speech will do a great deal to remind Democrats and other Clinton voters why they like him. He conveyed sheer joy and an intense bond with the audience, attributes that are–at least in my experience–very genuine. (Obviously commingled with much else.) As performance, it was dazzling. He is much more confident today than he was, say, eight years ago, which is worth noting as we watch Gore. He was able to quiet the crowd, or incite it, with a flick of his wrist, a change in intonation, even an arched eyebrow. I was reminded of old movies of Roosevelt, with his broad mannerisms, or of Reagan. I could tell he was thrilled to be able to give a speech where he was supposed to enthuse about his accomplishments. (Sort of a State of the Union address, but all in the past tense.)
A few quick thoughts on the speech itself. Of note, given the hair-pulling over whether Gore is writing his own, the speechwriters who worked on it tell me that Clinton spent the week dictating drafts into a tape recorder, rewriting and rejecting drafts, finally deciding what he wanted to say just yesterday. More than we realize, Clinton has changed our notions of eloquence. There were few Reaganesque flourishes, no shimmering landscapes, and shining cities. He has found a way to turn policy fact sheets into political red meat. The other thing that was striking was how openly partisan it was, all in a nice way, of course.
Not surprisingly, I disagree with your argument on the importance of his economic policies to the long boom. True, Clinton was an accidental fiscal disciplinarian, but the fact is that at the key moment in 1993, he made a politically tough decision to go for deficit reduction. He was urged to do it by Bentsen, Rubin, et al.–but one of the people who pushed him hardest was Gore. It turned out that the economy had changed, that in an era of global markets, fiscal discipline was now a stimulus. After the 1993 plan, business investment as a share of the economy spiked, and that helped unlock the technological boom. If Democrats have learned, grudgingly, to give Reagan a lot more credit for winning the Cold War, Republicans will have to learn to give Clinton credit for masterful economic leadership–or risk looking silly to voters.
Did he help Gore? I think so–if Gore lets him. Clinton’s endorsement was in his soft-sell mode. According to the Gore and Clinton people, if he had more stridently contrasted Gore with Bush, then it would have been harder for Gore to make that case on his own. Gore has always done well with these big set-piece speeches. In 1992 and even in 1996, people at the time thought he did better than Clinton. I just hope he doesn’t let Clinton’s effervescence rattle him.
One unsolved mystery from last night: The musical performer after Clinton spoke was the Music Man from Broadway. As I remember, the character was a sweet-talking con artist. Was this a prank? Did a Republican Dick Tuck sneak into the hall? I guess I should take comfort in the fact that, in the end, the Music Man does get the kids to play their instruments. (And he did win the heart of the librarian.)
