Nancy LeTourneau makes a great point when she says “It has been a long time since a sitting president was able to give a speech like that.” She didn’t mean that presidents haven’t been able to make good speeches at presidential conventions. She meant that we have to go back a long way to find a president who was had the popularity and moral credibility at the end of their second term in office to even have the opportunity to give a speech like Obama delivered last night.
The last two-term president, George W. Bush, delivered his speech to the 2008 Republican National Convention via satellite. He had some cover for not appearing in person because a hurricane was bearing down on Florida and he didn’t want to look as clueless in response as he had when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. There’s no question, however, that John McCain was not itching to have Bush as his character witness.
In 2000, the country was still angry about Bill Clinton’s behavior in office even if most Democrats thought it had been outrageous to impeach him over it. Al Gore not only tried to create distance between himself and the president, but he selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate in large part because Lieberman had been one of Clinton’s harshest critics during l’affaire Lewinsky. The convention was largely a sales pitch for Clintonism without Clinton.
In 1988, Ronald Reagan was very popular with Republicans and more popular than the person nominated to succeed him, but he was less popular nationally having staggered to the end of his presidency through the Iran-Contra Scandal during which a full third of the country told pollsters that they thought he should resign. He did give a speech at the convention, and his approval ratings spiked during his last year in office. However, Clinton actually had higher approval on his last day in office than Reagan enjoyed.
Jimmy Carter wasn’t a two-term president, but in 1992 it was a different Georgia Democrat who was selected to give the Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention: Zell Miller. Presidents Nixon and Lyndon Johnson had no credibility left when the 1976 and 1968 conventions rolled around.
As for Eisenhower, he did address the 1960 Republican National Convention in Chicago, but he didn’t bother to mention Richard Nixon’s name. In fact, when asked during a August 1960 press conference to name an idea of Nixon’s that he had used in making an important decision, Eisenhower responded “If you give me a week, I might think of one.” Ike reportedly felt badly about making that remark and called his vice-president to apologize, but the record stands for itself. He didn’t feel enthusiastic enough about Nixon to make a case for him at the convention or any place else.
Going back further, Truman was too unpopular in 1952 to be of any use to Adlai Stevenson, and FDR was dead in 1948 when Truman sought election.
Clearly, of this whole bunch, Reagan comes the closest to having been able to give a speech like the one Obama gave last night in which a popular and morally credible president can make an impassioned and enthusiastic speech in favor of their successor and have it be well-received by the media and the people. But Obama has no Iran-Contra scandal hanging over him. He hasn’t been impeached or had to resign to avoid being convicted. The party doesn’t want to run away from or hide his record.
It seems like a low bar to set, but it’s remarkable that we have to go searching in the mists of time to find a precedent.
If you’ve ever been guilty of taking President Obama for granted, you should put an end to that now. On character and performance, he has no recent peer.
Speaking as someone who has a lot of issues with Obama and his Admin, I will give props to him for a great speech last night. He covered a lot of important topics. The one that stood out for me was where he made reference – early on in his speech – to the fact that others around the world are, frankly, freaking out about this election bc Trump. Obama said it better than that, but I do believe that this accurately reflects what a lot of people – and their leaders – are feeling.
Obama was correct in bringing that up and pointing it out.
Obama clearly is great with his delivery. Definitely a much more positive approach to who and where we are as a nation and as US citizens.
Speaking only for myself, I regret the reference to Reagan and “shining city on a hill.” BLEAH. No thanks. Sadly, for me, it’s reflective of what I feel (my opinion) the present-day “Democratic” party has become: the Republican party of 3 decades ago with lashings of social progressivism on top of it.
There’s something to be said FOR that, but there’s also a ton to be said AGAINST it.
But yes, masterful speech from Obama. I give him that.
#Impeach
Hmm, I wonder if Obama got the almond idea from Edgar Cayce. Cayce recommended a small amount each day to help keep the body healthy. Strong in calcium, phosphorus and iron. Also said to have cancer-fighting properties. Good for digestion. Cayce advised “an almond a day, rather more than an apple, helps keep the doctor away, especially certain kinds of doctors.”
Obama a secret follower of the Sleeping Prophet??
An example of how a joke gets turned into a distilled “truth” about the character of a president and peddled to the masses.
RUKidding, I despise Reagan, but I loved Obama mentioning Reagan. If Hillary peels off a relatively small number of Romney voters in OH, PA, and/or FL, she wins the election. It was a brilliant move, especially since Trump has lost the sunny hopefulness that Reagan used to mask his horrible policies.
That’s how you play politics. It’s messy and you make some compromises. A shout-out in a speech is pretty tame.
As I indicated, it’s strictly my personal opinion. I have nothing kind to say about Reagan, and I have always regretted – that’s just me – Obama’s harkening back to him. Reagan’s Admin set us squarely on the path to our present stay of economic ruin for the working and middle classes.
For me, personally, I can see no reason to harken back to Reagan or his Admin as something admirable or desirable of emulating.
There are loads of other examples to use for encouraging a positive for our nation, which Obama provided many other examples. I appreciate Obama’s encouragement to view our nation in a positive light and to work from an attitude of gratitude, rather than hate, fear, hate, FEAR, that was all that the RNC offered.
’nuff said.
He used one famous phrase from Reagan’s rhetoric, one which provides inspiration to many and allows them to associate Obama’s policies with the famous phrase. To a significant degree, the President has taken our country away from Reagan’s policies. Acknowledging this is healthy; it’s a reality-based-universe observation.
If we’ve been frustrated by gridlock and the lack of progress on many issues, and pained by the horrible personal attacks on our movement, can you imagine his experiences with these things? I think of this statement Barack made in an interview a few months ago, and I’m made happy that he has figured out a way to not only maintain his emotional equilibrium, but has kept an accurate sense of perspective as well:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/23/president-obama-speaks-his-mind
“In the interview with Maron, the President, confronting frustrations with the fact that he wasn’t able to alter the world with the wave of a rhetorical wand, offered an alternative view of how big democratic societies work. They are, he said, like ocean liners: you turn the wheel slowly, and the big ship pivots. “Sometimes your job is just to make stuff work,” Obama said. “Sometimes the task of government is to make incremental improvements or try to steer the ocean liner two degrees north or south so that, ten years from now, suddenly we’re in a very different place than we were. At the moment, people may feel like we need a fifty-degree turn; we don’t need a two-degree turn. And you say, `Well, if I turn fifty degrees, the whole ship turns’ ” over.”
Progress has been made. We have the opportunity to make the progress exponential. It’s up to all of us, every citizen of this nation.
I agree with you, and so, I imagine, does virtually everyone here. But Obama is addressing a much wider audience, and the first principle of rhetoric is to adapt the available means of persuasion to the particular audience addressed.
Not at the risk of alienating a large portion of one’s primary/base audience. But what the hey, citing Kissinger’s support didn’t hurt HRC.
A mild wince, a fleeting grimace, a slight annoyance. He’s not going to alienate his base with something as minor as that.
heh — how things have changed in eight years. From a line to attack to a line to applaud.
All Obama said the first time was that Reagan “changed the trajectory of America”. That is a factual statement and I don’t think anybody could disagree. He did not put a value judgment on it.
Clinton tried a judo move, also to make himself look good. “[That Reagan had] more lasting impact than I did.” How? Because “the good ideas came out from the Republicans.”
But Obama never said they were good ideas, just new ideas. It’s “fair to say … that they were challenging conventional wisdom.” (And so am I). With this Obama may be able to attract some Reagan Democrats back into the fold.
Then HRC uses the same trick, “Republicans had BETTER ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years.” Obama didn’t say that.
Obama was just jerking them around, making deliberately “twistable” statements, knowing they would twist them because that’s just what they do. Then he could explain that, no — just as Reagan was able to reach out and attract Democrats, now he (Obama) is able to reach out with innovative Democratic ideas, and attract them back.
I think perhaps we’re concern trolling a bit much about whether the “base” was going to be alienated by anything Obama said last night.
The vast majority of people watching won’t even know he sprinkled in some Reaganisms but the ones he meant those lines for probably will.
Was there any major Presidential scandals during the last 8 years? I searched but could only find lists of faux-scandals on right wing websites.
Quite frankly I find that a remarkable achievement. No-drama Obama indeed!
The real scandal during this whole Presidency has been the behavior of the Republicans in Congress and their refusal to put the country first over partisan politics. I never thought I would see the day that a party would stoop so low time after time again. Trump is the natural consequence of such a path.
He will be missed.
Racer X, is your tag a nod to just Speed Racer, or to Big Black as well?
He WILL be missed.
And you can count on dickheads like David Brooks and his sort to start pining for his mature, steady leadership approximately 5 minutes after he has left the Oval Office, while lamenting the fact that we have such broken politics and such unworthy leaders.
Obama will go down in history as a very large figure; and his Republican tormentors will look very small indeed.
Republicans already look damn small, but yes, I think they can get tiny.
.
Obama has the political package recommended by Thucydides so long ago: words and deeds. There was no President since FDR who could both inspire and lead as he does. Even for a conservative, Reagan wasn’t nearly as good as Obama has been. If we can hold on to the presidency long enough for his achievements to stick he will be remembered as one of the greats.
I would put JFK in that category too, of inspiring leadership.
As for his legacy, he really needs to push hard in his final months to stand up to the hardliners at the Pentagon, CIA and State to reset the Reset with the Russians. Right now, if he does nothing more, he’ll be leaving a badly damaged US-Russia relationship to his successor. Things aren’t so good with China either. Not good and it needn’t be this way, especially with the Russkies.
http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-hillary-will-fight-protect-my-legacy-even-tr-53359
You write:
You are absolutely right, Booman!!!
He did his job really well.
He was the best frontman the establishment has ever had. Sheer talent!!!
They’re gonna miss him.
AG
Don’t worry, AG, he’ll be back. Probably as Supreme Court Justice.
More probably appointed by President Chelsea Clinton.
Precedent has it that next in order of succession would be President Michelle Obama.
Would that be nepotism?
More like Droit de Seigneur
When is Thomas retiring?
It was a weakly sourced article that said friends said he was considering it with no date set. I very much doubt he would on a narrowly divided Court with non-conservatives likely to be replaced in the near future. If it’s 2019 with Breyer and Ginsberg replaced with young liberals and a Republican Senate maaaybeee – but even then I’d bet no.
I will miss him. The love for him in that room was obvious. Those were the people who knew what he had meant to this country.
I’m not ready for him to go. I’m simply not. With all that was against him, he’s been a marvelous President.
He’s a good man and has done things that will improve the lives of ordinary people. I’m glad he was elected because I’m not as optimistic as he is about the future. I hope I am wrong and that his idealism will be vindicated.
I love this President. Like rikyrah, I’m not ready to see him go. I hope he stays in the public eye for a good long while. I look forward to smiling whenever I hear what he and Michelle are doing.
In 2007 the bottom 90% of the US had 28.5% of the wealth. In 2013 that had shrunk to 24.8% of the wealth. Meanwhile, the wealth of the top 1% went from 71.5% to 75.2%.
I have it on good authority that Hillary is going to change that.
All that money from Goldman Sachs must have made her embrace more progressive tax schedules.
Yes, I believe that. I really really do (yes: in case you need it: /s). But shhh, we’re not supposed to talk about that. Clinton just did the speeches and got paid for them, and it has no bearing on anything else. The end.
Get ready for TPP and a whole boatload of other neoliberal stuff, plus a whole boatload of justifying it endlessly. sigh.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe has the Presidential situation but not the convention venue. Jefferson and Madison were followed by their proteges. Not sure of who the chosen successors were after then until the Civil War. Not sure if Grant or Teddy Roosevelt supported their successors. The rarity has to do with the early contentiousness that created many one-term Presidencies. Two-term Presidencies have become the norm in the 21st century only because the sample size is 2.
And the “third term jinx” mythology could have played larger this year had not Trump gained the Republican nomination.
After Hillary’s masterful speech turning her experience of being the first black First Lady into a statement of how black lives mater (all lower case), the rhetorical pressure was on President Obama to be pitch perfect. Thankfully, he was. Even in his pivot to passing the baton to Hillary Clinton.
The context of struggle and the work being never done as framing his taking his victory lap and the pivot to a call for action were what he had to do for party unity, even the call-out to the persistence of the Berniecrats.
Given a marketing style of campaign, the recalling the continuity from his 2004 speech and the the assertion of optimism as a traditional American value set a remarkable tone that Democrats can build on. “We are not done; our work continues.” is the right message from the perspective of expanding Obama’s legacy. And provides openings to the left and to the right for compromise that is not capitulation.
The definition of hope as what he saw in a unified constituency that believed “Yes we can.” comes full circle to provide accountability to the Obama movement; see what we’ve done in eight years with solid obstruction from day one.
And the final reassertion of the inclusiveness of American values moves the argument forward against what are now a bunch of sputterers. Those, in spite of the slaveholders, segregationists, Know-Nothings, bigots of all stripes, super-nationalists, and nihilists, are in fact the values that have driven American politics toward greater inclusion and sharpened the view of the economic class system as 1% and 90% – the bosses and the bossed. And we know where “You’re fired.” TheDonald stand in that division.
Will the monocultural anti-Democrats be swayed? Likely not.
But that is now the frame of the argument between those who see the rainbow unity and those who insist on traditional privilege and discrimination.
Elites have worked since the 1680s to prevent the rainbow unity. They still will. They will try to co-opt individuals out of that rainbow as tokens into the elite – the Thomases, Cruzes, Rubios, and Carsons who deal in what’s for them.
It is interesting to look at the coming campaign as end-running the media with celebrity surrogates — Bill, Barack, Joe, Michelle, the Als, Tim and Bernie — and comtemplate how they will deploy themselves or be deployed through coordination.
Kaine deployed in the South and South Central states could reconnect an younger white “progressive” business-friendly party of successors to folks like Jim Hunt, Richard Riley, Jimmay Carter, and Richmond Flowers. That is the organization you want to accumulate this year as a strength come 2018 and 2020.
Obama can do Kansas, Illinois, Hawaii, and every minority community in the land.
Bill can go explain to the areas of the country that were well-explained-to twenty-four years ago–Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, and revisit some of the places that did support him in the Ohio Valley.
Michelle can work major cities (for example, Chicago, which has Rahm problems), especially those that have police issues. And she can push nutrition and urban agriculture issues, networking these constituencies together.
Joe Biden in the Rust Belt.
Bernie pushing independent or Democratic Berniecrats who will wind up having to caucus with the Democratic caucus (unless Republicans experience a major change of direction). The best chances will have to come from what to Democrats look as unworkable turf but could become victories in reaction to Republican extremism. This will test whether Sanders’s crossover voters were principled or tactical. It is unknown how this would fall but in a wave scenario, it is possible for Sanders to gain a beachhead in Congress for his “revolution”. And the mutual support given Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller has set a pretty wide precedent for independent alliances with Democrats. If it bore results in switched seats in “bad PVI areas”, that could be ample repayment for putting Sanders as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee.
I think that Trump is likely to be logistically handicapped by lack of support of establishment Republicans who just want 2016 to be over so they can rip the party apart with purges. But they still control the media Wurlitzer with its nonstop enthrallment and manufacturing of a separate reality.
Speaking of lack of support of establishment Republicans:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/future-45-donald-trump-super-pac/index.html
Michelle, not HIllary. Ouch, senior moment.
When President Obama went to Britain to encourage Britons to vote against Brexit did anyone in the Hillary camp complain about him trying to affect foreign elections?
Oh that’s different.
When have we not meddled in other nations’ elections?? We’ve meddled in plenty and more often, not that openly.
Two wrongs doesn’t make a right, but just saying…
A move I disagreed with entirely as its not our business to meddle in foreign affairs, whether its a domestic issue in the UK or a coup in Honduras or whatever else.
For the record though it was a referendum and not an election. I’m fairly sure Cameron asked for his support but he should not have interfered.