This is what Obama's aides should be forcing him to watch every night until he gets it. It makes for a stark and uncomfortable contrast with yesterday's moment at the Q&A.
For me, this clip of Bill Clinton from the 1992 campaign is the political equivalent of Maradona's second goal against England in 1986, or watching Roger Federer at the peak of his powers. It turns the prosaic business of politics into something like artistry.
If you watch the full version you can see that the lady's question is oddly framed: she asks the candidate how the national debt has affected their lives, personally. Bush, who is called to answer first, is utterly baffled, and makes a couple of false starts before giving a rambling answer that combines defensiveness with airy abstraction. Clinton, by contrast, gives about as perfect an answer as you'll ever see to a question from a voter. He steps towards her, fixes her with those seductive, infinitely expressive eyes, and asks her a little more about herself (a technique that is now copied, woodenly, by lesser politicians like Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband). He doesn't just hear the question - he reads the subtext. He realises that it isn't really about the national debt, it's a plea for politicians to make an emotional connection with the economic sufferings of ordinary people. He gives an utterly convincing display of empathy, with a hint of anger, for people whose lives have been disrupted by the recession. But he doesn't stop there.
When people refer to Bill Clinton's "Oprahfication" of politics, they often miss something vital. His ability to connect emotionally was and is only one part of his genius; the other is explaining complex issues with clarity; it's treating the voters as intelligent people who respond to arguments as well as feelings. In this answer he segues deftly from empathy to exposition. With a few incisive sentences he describes the choice before his questioner (and by implication all voters) as a choice between different economic strategies. He even says:
"This decision better be about what kind of economic theory you want."
It's hardly dumbing-down, is it? But he's earned the right to take the conversation to this high ground, by a) Showing that he understands, at a human level, what this voter and others are going through, and b) Speaking with clarity and concision. Clinton rounds off with a summary of what he intends to do about the problem, in one sentence. There's a cutaway to the president, who is literally slack-jawed with disbelief at his opponent's prowess. He must have realised, at that moment, he'd met his match.
As a communicator, Obama is no Bill Clinton; nobody is. But if he could get half as good as that on the economy, he'd be twice as good as he is now. At the moment he's coming off like George Bush Snr.
Comments