What this analysis misses--that strange, erratic "Charlie Rose" appearance notwithstanding--is the sheer pleasure of seeing the big guy work. You'd be hard-pressed to recall a Democratic presidential field richer in talent than the current one. And yet, five minutes into any Clinton riff, you realize you're watching some freakish hybrid of the party's top-tier.If you read the entire piece it may seem as if Scheiber may be poking fun, tongue firmly in cheek, but regardless, he makes some very valid points.
Clinton's speeches seems like rambling affairs as you listen to them--the bullet points pile up so quickly it's hard to keep them straight. But they always leave you with something profound....Often the take-away is some variation on the following: There's a solution to pretty much any problem if you get deep enough into the details.
Watching Clinton in Iowa is like watching Gandalf the White--a familiar and comforting presence, whose magical powers seem too good to be true, come back from another realm to save the day.
Hillary was part of a world-famous political brand--Clintonism--which Bill's appearances have a way of rehabilitating.
However, if indeed he is offering praise in a half-hearted manner, it begs the question: why must any credible journalist avoid laying out the case for the Clintons in a 100% non-wink-wink manner? Why must the accolades be lauded in couched fashion, firmly holding back the gushing that is so often afforded many of the much less worthy on the right?
Can we finally please accept and embrace the fact that despite his flaws and Monica dalliance, Bill Clinton was an excellent president, one of the best ever, that he and his wife were a terrific success while in office -- light years better than the GW/Laura tandem?
Just compare the Clintonism brand vs. the Bush brand (including Sr.). No comparison. Like a Mercedes-Benz C600 vs. a Dodge Dart.
Oh my gosh, we can't have four more years of that!