By voting day, Bill Clinton had lost his voice “in the service of my president”. But by then, the former US president had also touched the Barack Obama campaign with his magic wand. Casting a spell on voters always eager to drink him up, he made the case for Obama better than the candidate himself. Persuasive charm personified. It was the master sorcerer unplugged.
When detailed histories are written about how Obama won his second term, the coalitions he built and the strategies he adopted, a chapter might well be on the deployment of Clinton as the ultimate weapon against Mitt Romney’s army. Obama realised the need and Clinton was gracious enough to enlist.
He proved to be gentle but devastating—he called Romney “the chief contortionist for the Cirque du Soleil” for tying himself up in knots over the auto industry bailout. The Republican candidate had flip-flopped over many crucial issues in the campaign, giving Clinton much ammunition and more mirth. He recorded automated phone calls for voters, appeared in political ads, lent his gravitas as the Democratic president who had left behind a budget surplus.
The rest is the stuff of political legend. Clinton gave timely advice to the Obama campaign about connecting to White working class voters—a constituency that eludes the first African American president. But the biggest bang for the buck was the Democratic Party convention in September where Clinton was easily the best speaker of all, Barack and Michelle Obama included. He managed to distil the complicated issues around macro- and micro- economics as they affect the people in language that voters understood, earning the sobriquet of “explainer-in-chief”.
Convention delegates cheered, as Clinton declaimed from the podium holding his yellow notepad full of facts and figures and ideas. He had made Obama’s job easier. Clinton had worked for days reading, consulting experts and talking to ordinary people on the ground. And then made sense of it all to mount the argument that Obama’s policies were better for the middle class and the country as a whole.
Hillary, Bill after her nomination in 2006
‘Big Dog’ Clinton, the man who loves to be needed and needs to be loved, then bravely held up his half of the sky at 37 rallies, appearing sometimes in his bomber jacket and sometimes in a suit. When Obama left the campaign trail to oversee relief work after super storm Sandy, which hit the east coast with all its fury, Clinton filled in again as the star attraction. No complaints, for the man feeds on such rhythms of politics and on the people’s adulation.
Ironically, before the “bromance”, the two men weren’t always the best of friends, especially after a bruising 2007-08 campaign when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Party nomination to Obama. But recognising that the Clintons are better on the inside than on the outside, Obama played his masterstroke, persuaded Hillary to be his secretary of state. She accepted and grew in stature as her proud husband watched.
But in politics, nothing is ever as straight, especially in the highly evolved world of American presidential politics. No sooner had Obama delivered his acceptance speech in Chicago—#after thanking Bill Clinton on the phone—talking heads and Democratic bloggers were already moving to 2016 and the chances of Hillary as a possible candidate. It could be another history-making move, giving the Democratic Party another potential badge of honour.
So is there a connection between Bill’s tireless efforts for Obama and a putative Hillary Clinton bid in 2016, given that the former president is a politician’s politician, a strategist par excellence? In most of his speeches about Obama in the battleground states, Bill Clinton managed to slip in a cute reference to Hillary, along the lines of “he’s got a heck of a secretary of state”.
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate who lost to Obama in 2008, revealed last week “that there are some who think this may have a lot to do with 2016”, adding for good measure that he would never suspect “such a thing but there are some real jerks around who think that might be the case”. So why did McCain give currency to an idea floated by people he thought of as “jerks”? Was he trying to sow discord between the Clintons and Obama or was it just a bid to get his own party jumpstarted for 2016?
Hillary2016, a Twitter hashtag, began trending just as Romney conceded on Tuesday night. Clearly, there were many people thinking along those lines, and most likely it was her many supporters trying to create a buzz. A Google search yields four million entries and a website already selling T-shirts for the future campaign. She will be 69 years old in 2016.
Hillary has already retraced her steps a little from an earlier statement that she did not want to serve another term as America’s chief diplomat should Obama win again. In a recent interview, she said a lot of people had been asking her to stay on. Should she decide to serve another stint as secretary of state, her supporters say she would kill two birds with one stone. She would not only be able to clear her record—muddied by the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in which a US ambassador and three others died on September 11—but would also be able to stay larger-than-life in the public eye. It’s a win-win situation.
But Hillary has also said, in an interview to the Wall Street Journal, that “it’s important for me to step off this incredibly high wire I’ve been on to take stock of the rest of my life,” a theme she has repeated elsewhere too. Taking stock can also include regrouping for a presidential campaign and putting all the pieces in place. After all, she has said that politics was in her blood. No surprise that political pundits are busy speculating about the Bill and Hillary show—always interesting and always intriguing.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
69 to 77 compares with 46 to 54 for her husband and 47 to 55 for Barack Obama.
Women authoresses are no doubt pleased with Clinton and his wife and Obama, for the services to male-hatred in Feminist America.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT