BBC NEWS | The Reporters

42 and 44?

Gavin Hewitt
30 Oct 08, 10:16 PM GMT

Orlando, Florida: It was approaching the midnight hour when the police outriders, their lights flashing blue and red, passed under an American flag and the patient Orlando crowd broke into applause.

The announcer called for a welcome for the 42nd President of the United States and for the 44th - yet to be chosen. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama emerged together. They are both consumate workers of a rope line and they plunged into the crowd as if fearful they might be outdone by the other.

Whether you like them or not they are among the best communicators of the modern era; politicians who can move a crowd.

As they were walked towards the lecturn there was a lot of touching, as is common in a new relationship. All evening they were attentive to each other. An arm across a shoulder, a little touch on the arm, a full embrace.

A few months ago there was bad blood. The Obama team believed Bill Clinton had tried to pigeon-hole him as a black politician. But that was then when Hillary still hoped to claim the crown.

Barack Obama is a natural toucher. An arm around Mahmoud Abbas. An arm around Sarkozy. The arm is outstrectched because he is consensus man who believes that his warmth, his magic can cross any divide. (The only time I have seen him recoil was when he was leaving the Elysee and Sarkozy tried to kiss him goodbye. As Sarkozy stood on his toes Obama turned his head.) But last night touching, embracing was in.

Bill Clinton was neither coy nor coded. Right from the start he was endorsing the younger man: "Hello Orlando. America is ready for a new president. This new president," he said pointing at Obama, who by now was seated on a stool. Clinton's voice was slightly strained but he made the point that Obama's crowds were the future. Look around, he said, the people here are highly diverse. He acknowledged "there were a few old grey haired guys like me". But he went on to say that this type of crowd
was America's future.

Clinton's basic point was that the basic income of many people had fallen. The system was not working. A country needed a strong middle class. It is the same populist theme that lies at the heart of Obama's message.

It was an evening when compliments were splashing around but Bill Clinton said one of the arguments for Obama was the way he had run his campaign. He doubted whether in history there had been a campaign that had involved so many people either as volunteers or online or collecting money.

When he was done, Obama embraced him and whispered in his ear: "Couldn't have done better, thank you." Clinton sat slightly behind Obama as he delivered his "closing arguments" speech. It was a chance for one of the great orators to study the new contender. Afterwards, with just a note of awe, Clinton said: "He didn't always rely on the auto-prompt."

Now, in his time, neither did Clinton, but these are the last bone-weary days of a campaign when mistakes can come. Bill Clinton noticed that Obama "was tired when he arrived but the crowd lifted him up". Clinton understood this so well. Down or exhausted he could always draw energy from a crowd.

Afterwards came the full embrace, the hug, their arms lingering around each other. The importance for Obama was that in places like Ohio, Florida (the so-called i-4 corridor) and Pennsylvania there are still mainly white working class voters who went for Hillary but may not yet support Barack. The Obama team are nervous about them and that was Bill's value to them.

Before the rally most of the TV networks had run the 30-minute Obama infomercial. You could see the money on the screen - the music, the slow dissolves, the picture quality. When it came to Barack Obama standing up and moving to the front of the desk I felt I was in the Oval office already. This was the president speaking or so it seemed. I wondered what the voters made of it. Did they see a leader who would look comfortable in the Oval Office or did they pause and say: "Hang on we haven't voted for him yet."

Then the black-and-white images followed. There is often a nostalgic quality to them. The picture of Obama going up the staircase reminded me of JFK. The Obama team, it seems to me, take nothing for granted. They are the consummate campaigners. They are five days from touch down and ahead in the polls but they have Bill Clinton at a midnight rally, Al Gore popping up in Florida, the scene of his nightmare, a 30 minute ad. They are the team ahead and are showing all the nerves of the front-runner.

Comments

1. At 10:43pm on 30 Oct 2008, Alipooley wrote:
Nice Article, Obama has to be careful that he doesn't look like a man who knows he has it in the bag.. I guess it's a bit of a balancing act between looking like the president but knowing it.

Complain about this comment
2. At 10:57pm on 30 Oct 2008, olafpalme wrote:
From what I saw Clinton came a bit close to doing a Kinnock `Well Alright!!' ... but luckily, not quite!

Complain about this comment
3. At 11:31pm on 30 Oct 2008, YM_Cambridge wrote:
'It was an evening when complements were splashing around'

I think you mean 'compliments' :-)

Otherwise, great reporting!

Complain about this comment
4. At 11:48pm on 30 Oct 2008, dhimmi wrote:
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275008.html

Complain about this comment
5. At 00:02am on 31 Oct 2008, Rogerborg wrote:
This fawning obsession over a post that was clearly intended to be largely ceremonial in nature is getting just a little creepy.

Please, let's leave the Colonials to choose their charming little ersatz-monarch in peace.

Complain about this comment
6. At 00:51am on 31 Oct 2008, sad_old_pedant wrote:
3: you didn't spot "lecturn" for "lectern".

Complain about this comment
7. At 00:57am on 31 Oct 2008, pewoods wrote:
Great reporting ..... I had the good fortune to be at the event itself and witness two oustanding orators and maybe a small part of history in the making. For me Clinton was the more polished with Obama sometimes hesitatant, but the message was on tune and went down well with the crowd (since the majority were probably already Obama supporters).

Complain about this comment
8. At 01:06am on 31 Oct 2008, Dayvine wrote:
Nice article.

I especially agree with your sentiment about the presidential attitude of the 30 min tape.

I am slightly worried that McCain will concentrate on making Obama look smug and eager to jump the gun.

Having said that it was declared Bush had won before people had finished voting in 2000, it would be much less painful if Obama could do that same trick before people had even started.

Maybe McCain will follow Colbert’s advice and endorse Obama. That would be a nice quick and clean outcome.

Complain about this comment
9. At 02:12am on 31 Oct 2008, NELTR0N wrote:
I saw Obama's appearance on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. Even though it was being played in a small window on a web page I could see that Obama seemed tired. Hopefully he's not "doing a Kinnock", and other the other factors won't come into play - The Bradley effect, flakey dreamers not actually voting, the voting machines with a mind of their own, etc.

Complain about this comment
10. At 03:49am on 31 Oct 2008, faris_jawad wrote:
Thanks Gavin for your well thought blogs.

I follow your comments day by day. I like your way of narrating events, describing the feelings. You took all of us there as we were really amongst those in rallies.

As you probably admire Barak Obama for his eloquence, rhetoric, dedication, I am impressed by your seminal articles.

I wish, as you probably do, Obama to win, so we can enjoy the years to come, whether ordinary we are or intellectuals.

Complain about this comment
11. At 07:31am on 31 Oct 2008, uptownavondale wrote:
how exactly do complements or compliments splash around?

Complain about this comment
12. At 07:39am on 31 Oct 2008, akaTurkish_delight wrote:
Thank you Mr Hewitt for your excellent, prescient and inspirational article. You have really captured the mood of the Orlando crowd that I felt as if I was there.

I feel we are on the brink of history here. I sincerely hope that the American people think carefully before they cast their vote - it is of the utmost importance.

The results of the American election is not just contained within the territorial borders of America. It will have an impact on the rest of the world. Hence the reason for the international media coverage. America is a superpower and thus major events which happen there are closely inter-related with what happens in every other country in the world. So, I say to the people of America, the whole world is watching you and relying on you to make an informed decision.

Complain about this comment
13. At 08:20am on 31 Oct 2008, weebison wrote:
"This fawning obsession over a post that was clearly intended to be largely ceremonial in nature is getting just a little creepy."

So you consider the oversight of the day-to-day management of the country to be ceremonial? Is the Prime Minister ceremonial? Moreover, why exactly is the most relevant question what was intended, as opposed to the very important reality that the president wields an incredible amount of influence and power?

"Please, let's leave the Colonials to choose their charming little ersatz-monarch in peace."

Thanks! And we'll let you get back to pretending you're still in the 19th century!

Complain about this comment
14. At 08:32am on 31 Oct 2008, RealisticJimmy wrote:
#13, weebison,

By the sound of it, some of us still are.

Complain about this comment
15. At 08:44am on 31 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:

Good atmospheric post.

And to critics of the 30-minute broadcast - it was not intended for the likes of all of us who are interested enough to respond to this blog. It was aimed at the "undecideds" to assure them that Obama is suitable presidential material.

And it succeeded brilliantly.

Complain about this comment
16. At 08:53am on 31 Oct 2008, protogodzilla wrote:
Am I alone in feeling queazy at BO sharing a platform with the sleazy Bill Clinton? A few weeks ago he was making racist remarks at public meetings and now he is endorsing him. Keep BC at a galactic distance - he is a proven poison toad.

Had his appearance at Hilary's meetings not happened, she might have clinched the nomination. For that BC has my thanks, though his track record of abuse, in every sense of the word, ensures his pole position in the Hall of Shame. .

Complain about this comment
17. At 10:06am on 31 Oct 2008, James Maxwell wrote:
It's a straight choice. Do you want someone with fresh ideas, who can be an inspirational leader, who builds confidence and enthusiasm in everyone he meets, who happens to be black (as if that makes a difference), and who will bring America out of the funk it is currently in (both domestically and internationally)? Or do you want someone who is tired, can't seem to keep up, is visibly wilting on the campaign trail, makes blunders, bizzarely described the American economy as being strong, is forgetful, desperate, deceitful, vivious, and above all utterly resistant to change?

Right-wing Americans resent that Obama is the overwhelming choice outside America. They say that foreigners have no right to opine on who Amercans should pick as their president, and the argument goes that Obama's foreign tour, speaking in front of rapturous crowds in Berlin and other cities, hirt his campaign. This is absurd. People in other countries or not inherently more left wing or right wing than Americans, they can just see what is self-evident: America urgently needs a drains-up change in the way it goes about its business - in terms of its foreign policy, its economic choices, the way it treats its own citizens, especially those who are poor. Only Obama can provide this change.

For America's sake, and for the sake of us all, I sincerely hope they vote in Barack Obama next Tuesday.

Complain about this comment
18. At 10:31am on 31 Oct 2008, nomorefakenews wrote:
oh dear!!
another BILDERBERG GROUP and COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS stooge/shill enters the picture...

I cannot wait for the north american union to take place in the next term....usa,canada and mexico join in a union (like the EU) with a new currency....the amero...

this was signed on 23march2005 by bush jr at baylor uni, waco, texas...

kind regards
nomorefakenews

Complain about this comment
19. At 10:41am on 31 Oct 2008, EpistleApostle wrote:
Proper writing, and on the web too! How marvellous to be given the chance to stretch those muscles in such a context. You have my thanks and my envy Mr Hewitt.

As for the pedants: give it up.

Complain about this comment
20. At 10:54am on 31 Oct 2008, Bobsy26 wrote:
I suspect that if Obama is elected then the tactic of "acting presidential" while campaigning, as he has undoubtably done (especially when he was off round Europe on his 'Blonde Ambition' tour), will be decided on as a strong tactic we can expect to see again and again in future elections. I wonder if in 2012 just how devastatingly powerful a "Presidential Palin" could be?

On the other hand if he loses it will be derided as arrogance and presumption and we can expect candidates pumping up the humility in the future.

Complain about this comment
21. At 11:04am on 31 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:
#16 godzilla

I can see you don't like Bill much, but I think you go a bit far with ...
... "though his track record of abuse, in every sense of the word, ensures his pole position in the Hall of Shame."

Abuse in every sense of the word .... what child abuse, beating his wife, alcoholism, bad language ......

He had affairs. It's wrong, but not criminal. He lied (why, I'm still not sure). It bears no relation to his ability to govern (look at Kennedy, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ and Jefferson)

source
http://hubpages.com/hub/Sexual-Affairs-by-US-Presidents

Clinton left the USA with a balanced budget and a great reputation in the world - you only need to consider the out-pouring of grief, support and condolence after 9/11.

This was then frittered away by the Bush government.

No president is faultless, and Clinton also made objective policy and personal errors (Whitewater), but in general he was a great president who was bushwacked (nice, eh!) by hypocrits who saw marital fidelity as more important than good government.

We may be morally vacuous in Europe, but at least we have some perspective.

Complain about this comment
22. At 11:05am on 31 Oct 2008, weebison wrote:
"By the sound of it, some of us still are."

By which I am supposed to glean what, exactly?

Complain about this comment
23. At 11:57am on 31 Oct 2008, olafpalme wrote:
I'm giving up on this election and concentrating on the win-win factor.
Obama wins.. America will be more civilized.
McCain wins... we get more laughs from comedians.

Complain about this comment
24. At 12:03pm on 31 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
Hitler and Mussolini could stir a crowd too. Its not much of a claim to fame.

What REALLY annoys me about peoples memories of Clinton is how everything has been neatly airbrushed.

How many people remember the hundreds of cruise missiles he fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in reprisal for the US embassy bombings. The 9/11 hijackers entered the US while Clinton was in office and many of the toxic loans that have surfaced now and are causing economic problems were made under his economic policy not Bush's. Clinton and Gore were in office when Kyoto failed to ratify not Bush... thats an 'inconvenient truth' for Gore fans and Clintons handling of the Panama canal hand over was pathetic.

I don't think Clinton was a bad President but he had the good luck to be in office when things were going well (as did Blair) neither were especially responsible for them going well and both have sowed seeds that have matured into todays problems.

Complain about this comment
25. At 1:32pm on 31 Oct 2008, AAlvinTwiningham wrote:
To #20,

Thanks, you made me laugh with the thought of Palin acting "presidential". I saw her trying to read a script intended to make her appear intelligent (her address on energy in Ohio) and she was very clearly made uncomfortable by too many multi syllable words. The irony of her claiming the Dems "don't get the sciiii-ence!" of alternate fuels days after denouncing genetic research on fruit flies as a "pet project" was astounding also.

I for one prefer Obama's "presidential" attitude to McCain's "bitter old codger" and Palin's "country hick" act. And let's not mention Joe the tax cheat who thinks Obama will destroy Isreal...unless people think he should think otherwise.

Complain about this comment
26. At 1:54pm on 31 Oct 2008, Simon densley wrote:
As an adjunct to #17, I would like to add that if McCain is supposed to be so much better with foreign policy that Obama, why is it that the foreign community is so squarely behind Obama? I think he’ll be just fine when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world, and the rest of the world knows it.

Complain about this comment
27. At 1:57pm on 31 Oct 2008, Belmons wrote:
24. At 12:03pm on 31 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

The 9/11 hijackers entered the US while Clinton was in office."

Yes, and why did they find it so startlingly easy to take control of those planes? Because domestic airlines had resisted tightening of security, because it would have affected business. And we all know business is sacred

Complain about this comment
28. At 2:07pm on 31 Oct 2008, Older than the Pyramids wrote:
Why is everyone so confident that the US presidential election will be a 'BO selector'?

Complain about this comment
29. At 2:53pm on 31 Oct 2008, badgercourage wrote:
#24

"The 9/11 hijackers entered the US while Clinton was in office"

That's a non-sequitur and irrelevant to anything. "Coincidence is not correlation and correlation is not causation."

The real problem was lax airline security in the USA, going back decades. You could just turn up at the gate with a briefcase and a credit card and get on the plane with no screening! The airlines resisted more security as it would hit revenues.

Now of course we have gone too far the other way, security is excessive and some of it seems to be politicial and maybe commercial rather than operational, eg not letting you take a sealed water bottle through security but allowing you to buy one from open displays air-side. I would wager that any future terrorist would get a job air-side.

Complain about this comment
30. At 3:26pm on 31 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
29 "That's a non-sequitur and irrelevant to anything."

No. Its highly relevant. The poor airport security was just the final link in a chain that could have been broken many times.

My point is that US policy under Clinton annoyed Al Que'da enough to launch the raid. US embassies issued them tourist wisas. The FBI didn't follow up why these 20 guys were having very 'selective' flying lessons etc. An awful lot of screw-ups happened on Clintons watch yet he seems to be teflon coated because everyone just pretends they didn't happen.... unlike Bush.

Bush is a very unlucky guy. Does anyone think Clinton or Obama would have done anything fundamentally different on 9/11? Bill especially had an 8 year track record of firing cruise missiles at anyone who annoyed him and blitzed Serbia, Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan, yet for some peverse reason he's remembered as a peacemaker.

If you want "non-sequitur and irrelevant to anything" you should look at the US economy in the 90's. Clinton gets praised for managing it when in actual fact the worlds economy was booming. He personally did nothing and as we've all found out most of the boom was fueled by irresponsible lending.

I actually quite like the guy and he's certainly a hell of a speaker but I don't think he should be put on a pedestal the way far too many people do.

Complain about this comment
31. At 3:56pm on 31 Oct 2008, Hockley Heat wrote:
Mr. Hewitt. You display your naivetie by your comments. Clinton and his wife have been absent for most of this campaign. Ever wonder why?
Unfortunately, you and Justin Webb have no idea of the US psyche. More unfortunately, the BBC want Obama to win. Then he'll be 'interviewed' by Ross. Seriously, you guys need to get an American commentator who knows what they're talking about.

Complain about this comment
32. At 4:09pm on 31 Oct 2008, zephyr99 wrote:
At 00:02am on 31 Oct 2008, Rogerborg wrote:
"This fawning obsession over a post that was clearly intended to be largely ceremonial in nature is getting just a little creepy.

Please, let's leave the Colonials to choose their charming little ersatz-monarch in peace."

It is precisely condescension from the ruling class that resulted in America's current status as a rather large group of former "Colonials." Go back to your drawing room and enjoy your lofty status as a random descendant of "royalty" while it lasts, Rog. 'Tis a pity life is so short.

Complain about this comment
33. At 4:20pm on 31 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:
#30 - Peter Sym
"Bush is a very unlucky guy. Does anyone think Clinton or Obama would have done anything fundamentally different on 9/11?"

You are correct that any President on 9/11 would have had a pretty bad day. There is really no playbook for that sort of situation. Still, I'm not sure children's books would have featured highly with Obama or Clinton.

Many people who dislike Bush are not so much concerned with what he did ON 9/11, as in the following years.

I have no problem with Afghanistan - the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda. I'm sure Clinton or Obama would have run with that.
.... but Iraq. Personally, I don't think so.

I agree that Clinton is not perfect, had an easy decade in which to preside, and made some stunning errors of personal judgement. However he was not obviously linked to the industries which have profited most from war in Iraq as Bush and Cheney were.

Complain about this comment
34. At 4:50pm on 31 Oct 2008, Ashill wrote:
An interesting "Question Time" on BBC TV last night from Washington (DC that is, not Tyne & Wear).

I got the impression that the US panel members would consider David Cameron a raging socialist in view of their reaction to using taxes to "spread the wealth around". Good grief!

Meanwhile some newspaper columnists are suggesting McCain as President could make hard choices which Obama could not because if Obama did them they would be seen as socialism but if McCain did them they would be seen as pragmatic (as Bush's pseudo nationalisations have perhaps been seen).

At the same time I keep thinking of Neil Kinnock 'celebrating' an election victory that never materialised!

Complain about this comment
35. At 5:37pm on 31 Oct 2008, Dayvine wrote:
#31. aledlhughes wrote:

"Seriously, you guys need to get an American commentator who knows what they're talking about. "

I think that is an oxymoron.

(Sorry, this is a fatuous, yet predictable, comment.)

Complain about this comment
36. At 8:15pm on 31 Oct 2008, Cartponybefore wrote:
'scene of Al Gore's nightmare'?? - anyone who wants to be president must be out of their mind- losing Florida was the best thing that ever happened to Gore.

Complain about this comment
37. At 11:27pm on 31 Oct 2008, sustevens wrote:
A spell (and punctuation) check would have been useful before posting this article.

Complain about this comment
38. At 6:29pm on 01 Nov 2008, FinMember wrote:
Most Americans still feel the election is close? Why, Obama is well ahead in almost every creditable poll, 11% in Gallup probably the most respected polling company. There is still a lot of concern if Americans can choose the best candidate if he is black. bush and republicans have ruined world opinion of the US and now another bush is trying to get elected. This would be funny if didn't affect the rest of the world so intimately. How can a nation that re-elected a warmonger and obvious financial idiot consider another republican with similar worldview to run their country. Obviously the opinion of the rest of the world is unimportant.

Complain about this comment
39. At 2:17pm on 03 Nov 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
#38 "Obviously the opinion of the rest of the world is unimportant."

As it damned well should be. This is an election for the american people to choose the president they feel will be best for America. Its not an election for the French/British/Russians to tell the americans to vote for the guy who's best for France Britain and Russia.

Equally your assesment of Bush is clearly ridiculously biased. Why is he 'an obvious financial idiot' ? He's a self made millionaire (from investing in the texas rangers baseball team). He ISN'T the guy who lent huge amounts of money to people who couldn't pay it back and then sold the debts on to other banks. In fact much of these toxic loans were made under Clinton, which is why the economy boomed in the 90's.

Complain about this comment
40. At 1:56pm on 07 Nov 2008, Guru wrote:
Bobsy26: Obama was not the only one acting 'presidential'. Palin too was. She met the visiting Pakistani head-of-state. (and was praised for her looks)
Peter_sym: "The 9/11 hijackers entered the US while Clinton was in office": I do not think this is factually correct. Many entered during Bush's watch. Do not forget that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, not iraqis. Bush had close relations with Saudis, he chose to attack Iraq instead, a country that turned out not to have much to do with 9/11 attacks. Thanks to Bush, Al-quida is now in Iraq. Iraq is a win-win situation: Al-quida goes strong, war profits. Peace under occupation, oil profits! Of course Americans pay for either with taxes or high gasoline prices if not with the lives of their sons and daughters! Great patriotism, that!

Complain about this comment