The Joe and Hillary show

Andrew Stephen

Published 28 August 2008

Obama has taken a colossal risk in choosing the gaffe-prone Biden and may come to regret not opting for popular Clinton

We have now reached the end of day two of the eight days of the 2008 Democratic and Republican conventions as I write - the Democrats reserved the Pepsi Centre in Denver for the first four and the Republicans the Xcel Energy Centre in St Paul, Minnesota, for the remaining four that begin on 1 September - and so far the roof has not fallen in over either party. Hillary Clinton was all kissy-kissy and exuding pro-Obama fire and brimstone when she spoke on Tuesday night, as I knew she would be: she has no intention of jeopardising her career as US senator for New York, or the good chance she believes she still has, should Barack Obama lose in November, of securing the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012.

It could be that, by the time you read this, her husband will have launched a kamikaze attack on Obama in his speech on Wednesday night - or Republican prayers might have been answered and a tornado will have struck the huge open-air football stadium that he immodestly chose to deliver his acceptance address the following evening (just as JFK did when he gave his acceptance speech from the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum rather than the convention venue next door - geddit?).

But I doubt it very much. American political conventions become interesting only if things go wrong and fights break out; the Democrats' first two days were hardly organised like clockwork and sometimes deteriorated into a shambles, but that was merely business as usual. To sit through a day of one of these conventions is stupefyingly boring: although television coverage gives the reverse impression, almost none of the thousands on the convention floors listen to a word spoken by perhaps 95 per cent of the speakers, who nonetheless plough through their big moment as though the world were on tenterhooks.

For the remaining 5 per cent or so of speakers, it is the precise opposite. Each night at least one over-rehearsed, overprepared, over-coiffed and over-choreographed man or woman will dominate the proceedings with an autocued speech to which everyone (including a coast-to-coast television audience of 20 million) listens intently. Michelle Obama played that role competently on the Democrats' first night - but her performance suffered from the artificiality engendered by overpreparation (I wish the Obamas would stop using their daughters as props who supposedly spontaneously shout cute things to their mum and dad - fully miked and right on cue).

Meanwhile, the newly appointed Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Joe Biden, "choked up" when he spoke to delegates from his home state of Delaware - choking up being obligatory for all American politicians when the appropriate chance arises. Even what should have been a truly moving moment - surely the last appearance on a convention stage by Ted Kennedy - seemed choreographed and mawkish, alas.

The divisive issue never far from the surface in Denver, though, was Obama's choice for the vice-presidential slot of Biden rather than Hillary Clinton. Nobody should underestimate the depth of the fissures that started to divide the Democrats as soon as the 2008 primaries turned nasty and it became apparent that the Obama campaign was masterful in disguising its dirty tricks, and it will take a lot more than a gracious speech or two to heal the underlying wounds.

Rudy Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, dropped by in Denver and said it was a "no-brainer" that Obama should have chosen Clinton, given that their primary season tussle ended in a virtual dead heat and that, in the end, more Democrats probably voted in the primaries for Clinton than for Obama himself. Clinton, too, always had stronger credentials for the general election in November: she was a consistently better performer in the crucial battleground states, and had cornered the votes of the poor working class and women.

An Obama-Clinton ticket would have meant overcoming deep personal animosities, but there is a tradition of presidential candidates and their running mates loathing each other: JFK and LBJ hardly spoke, and there was no love lost even between Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush. Biden can bring some of the pluses to the ticket that Clinton would have brought - getting out the working-class vote, perhaps - and may even be able to deliver the battleground state of Pennsylvania, where he grew up, to the Democrats.

But Obama is taking a colossal risk by passing over Clinton in favour of Biden, who is perhaps the most notorious and gaffe-prone windbag in the Senate; the Republicans are already rubbing their hands with gleeful anticipation. John McCain will have tried to steal some of Obama's thunder on Friday by naming his own running mate (possibly the former governor Mitt Romney, a McCain apparatchik tells me) and then the whole circus moves north to Minnesota.

The Republicans, I predict, will put on an al together slicker show than the Democrats - providing another timely reminder that they and McCain are still very much contenders in this most engrossing of presidential races.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

1 comment from readers

Roland Baker
30 August 2008 at 12:52

"American political conventions become interesting only if things go wrong and fights break out;....

"To sit through a day of one of these conventions is stupefyingly boring: "

New Statesman subscribers are paying your air fare, your hotel bill and your wages Mr Stephen. I cannot bear to think of your being as bored as you would be if you were in the UK trying to live on unemployment benefit. So I thought I should start a spat with you to liven things up.

American political conventions become interesting when people of high standing lie and make promises they cannot commit their chosen candidate to keep. I assume you were too stupefyingly bored to notice this from Madeleine Albright regarding Barack Obama:

"....he will keep our country secure while returning it to its rightful place as the world's most respected champion of law, prosperity and peace."

What is his position on impeaching Bush over war crimes and Attorney firings? On what specific date will he shut Guantanamo and when will he bring the USA within the jurisdiction of the The Hague over war crimes?

Law after all is Barack Obama's subject of study at University and not just any University either. He was President of the Harvard Law Review. Can he answer my questions with anything more than weasel-worded hair-splitting spin?

I will take your job Mr Stephen if you are bored with it because I believe what Madeleine Albright said could prove to be Barack Obama's undoing and hers if he is elected President. She'll need to do more than cite 51 members of the UN in alphabetical order from memory to work her way out of this one. I don't find that boring at all.

Lord Steel of Aikwood, I notice, was very taken with the part of Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC which said: “people the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”

Lord Steel took the trouble to mention it on the Radio 4 Today programme so he must have stayed up late and not been bored by it. Denver is 7 hours behind UK time. Yet another hostage to fortune for Barack Obama to live down if he has to work in the Oval Office.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Andrew Stephen

Andrew Stephen was appointed US Editor of the New Statesman in 2001, having been its Washington correspondent and weekly columnist since 1998. He is a regular contributor to BBC news programs and to The Sunday Times Magazine. He has also written for a variety of US newspapers including The New York Times Op-Ed pages. He came to the US in 1989 to be Washington Bureau Chief of The Observer and in 1992 was made Foreign Correspondent of the Year by the American Overseas Press Club for his coverage.

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker