HOME / the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

John Podhoretz and Michael Waldman

The Virtuoso

Posted Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000, at 4:25 PM ET

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.)

The Virtuoso

Posted Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000, at 4:25 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
John Podhoretz served as a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan. He's now a twice-weekly columnist for the New York Post and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. Michael Waldman, former director of speechwriting for President Clinton, is the author of the forthcoming POTUS Speaks: Finding the Words That Defined the Clinton Presidency (click here to buy it).
COMMENTS

Reader Comments from The Fray:




[Reaction to Monday's entry]

Perhaps the reason Gore wants it to be known that he is writing his own speech is that he wants to focus on the content rather than presentation. (Yes, I know that would be revolutionary and possibly seditious.)

As a minor official who has written speeches for others, for myself and occasionally read speeches written by others, I believe the best person to write a speech is the person who best knows what needs to be said (not necessarily the same thing as who knows the most). Gore is trying to say that he is his own man, not mouthing the words others have prepared, and if the result is less felicitous and ear-catching than the work of true professionals, does that really matter?

--David

(To reply, click
here.)


Er, a defendant has a right to a lawyer to defend him because the power of the state is being directed against him. A politician has no right to a speechwriter because the politician is trying to seize the power of the state (at least part of it) and people deserve to know what he/she thinks. We've already got too many courtroom analogies in politics anyway--but just because most politicians ought to be on trial nowadays doesn't mean that they are, in all respects, entitled to the protections that defendants get. Presumption of innocence, for example, exists because the state has the burden of proving someone guilty. But in elections, politicians have the burden of showing themselves worthy. Few in recent experience have met this burden.

--Daniel Webster

(To reply, click
here.)


It's not true that only Lincoln could write his own speeches. So could Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and jumping ahead and across the pond, Churchill and many others. And the issue is not just speeches. Some statesmen have actually been able to craft state papers and diplomatic correspondence themselves.

This is not to say that important documents--and that can include political speeches--should never be collaborative works. Of course they should be. Washington frequently relied on Madison and Hamilton, among others, in his writings. (Of, course, they also were statesmen, not mere scribblers).

The common lament is that modern presidents have too much to do; so overwhelmed are they that they could never write their own speeches or correspondence. This is baloney. Lincoln managed to run a nation at war with a million-man army in the field while managing to write most of his own stuff with the help of a few trusted cabinet members and his two secretaries. And Churchill managed to run a nation at war with bombs falling over his own head, while dictating elaborate memos to colleagues, letters to FDR and other foreign counterparts and speeches to parliament, among other documents. Much of what consumes the modern president's time is a constant stream of photo ops, political meetings and appearances and fundraising

--Publius

(To reply, click
here.)


Anyone who attempts to justify his or her profession by likening it to being a lawyer, as John Podhoretz does, is surely treading in murky ethical waters.

--Jeff Brunswick

(To reply, click here.)


[Reaction to Tuesday's entry]

As all of us who follow politics--including Mr. Podhoretz--know very very well indeed, the same arguments made by Bentsen, Rubin, Tyson, Blinder, Summers, Panetta and company had been previously made to Reagan and Bush by senior Reagan and Bush administration officials like Stockman, Feldstein, Darman, and Shultz. They were correct during the Clinton Administration. They had been correct during the Bush Administration. And they had been correct during the Reagan Administration.

The difference is that--unlike his two predecessors--Clinton had the brains to understand these arguments and the guts to follow through on them.

--Brad DeLong

(To reply, click
here.)


[Reaction to Wednesday's entry]

As a native Los Angeleno, a barbie worshiper, bleached blonde, and a chronic surfer I say to Mr. John Podhoretz:

Welcome to L.A. Now Go Home.

--Candi F.

(To reply, click
here.)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
Veterans Day.82/091111_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on the military.55/091111_TC.jpg
Star onboard.73/091111_TD.jpg