Clinton's speech last night was so pitch perfect and masterful that, in my opinion, it is going to be difficult for Obama to follow him---even given the separation of twenty four hours. I thought that Clinton's speech was going to be more hellfire and brimstone than it was. The speech did have a bible belt flavor to it and could have been delivered from a pulpit with an "Amen" at the end. In fact Clinton did give Ryan a public spanking and if Ryan didn't smile just a little bit, it only proves he has no more conscience than a tennis shoe.

Obama's predicament and impediments seem obvious. How does he attempt to add anything to what Clinton has already said better, if not in concept, in technique? For months Obama has been addressing the "Class Warfare" charge with, "...it's not about "class", it's about "math". I never liked that line. First off, I had to ask myself, "did he say "math" or "mat", or whatever. Maybe my hearing is bad, but like watching Masterpiece Theater, I hate it when I have to work to catch the actual dialog. Clinton's beautiful lead-up to the word "arithmetic", shows how easy it can be if you have the right word to begin with---not to mention that the folk language meter of this country is iambic--a rith' me tic'.

By the way, I re-read Truman's 1948 speech about which I have been intent on finding comparisons with Clinton and Obama ever since last Saturday when I invested $5 for a used book on the Democrats' 1948 convention in Philadelphia. (Both conventions were held in Philadelphia because of that new fangled thing called T.V. and the location of the coaxial cable at the time.) This Truman quote is much akin to Clinton's didactic style last night. "The Republican platform cries about cruelly high prices. I have been trying to get them to do something about high prices ever since they met the first time. Now, listen to this one: This one is equally bad, and as cynical."  Why Truman and Clinton could nail a line such as that, and Obama can't, is a matter for conjecture.

As we discussed in these pages a while back, the difference between Clinton and Obama is not so much in policy but in leadership style, and as a subset, speaking mannerisms. Where Clinton can explain things in a Southern bible belt style without appearing "preachy", Obama, well, just sounds preachy. I'm not sure why. And I think more than anything else, Obama's speaking style may be wearing thin and becoming a disservice to his actual achievements. I wonder if part of the motivation for moving his speech indoors isn't to develop a contrast with his stadium speeches of yore.

So if Obama can just explain things in a no nonsense way and drop the oratory, I think he will be more effective tonight than if he tries to re-kindle his speeches of 2008. One of my instincts about Clinton's speech was that demographics were not uppermost in his mind but simple truth telling was. So, Mr. President, forget about demographics and trying to find every last female vote on planet Earth, and just focus on truth telling, in the meter of our heritage.  

Because Obama is not Clinton or Truman, re-inventing Truman's "do-nothing Congress" attack seems problematic. Some time ago I suggested an Eastwood-esque approach to the Tea Party Congress of 2010. "Now two years ago, some strangers came to town intent on tearing the place down. Masquerading as fiscal conservatives these obstructionists tried to bring this town to its knees. Instead of working to solve the job crisis, they were hell bent on a regressive and narrow social agenda. Their ideological center is Paul Ryan and their ring leader is Mitt Romney."

Mr. President, stick to story telling, not just recitation.

It seems that Obama must recognize the enormous contribution and big brother steps in against the bullies reality of the speeches which have gone before. A segue which includes Hillary's enormous contributions would be one of the best ways to recognize and thank Bill Clinton. The President has been hitting the notion of asking for help is no stigma with respect to veterans and their post traumatic stress and other wounds. He should take his own advice. It's not a sign of weakness to ask for help. Here's Truman in 1948:

"The battle cry is just the same now as it was in 1932, and I paraphrase the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt and say as he issued the challenge in accepting the nomination in Chicago, 'This is more than a political call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this new crusade and keep America secure and safe for its own people.'

"Now my friends, with the help of God, and the wholehearted push which you can put behind this campaign, we can save this country from a continuation of the 80th Congress and from misrule from now on."

"I must have you help, you must get in and push and win this election. The country can't afford another Republican Congress."

Tomorrow is September 7th, the beginning of the campaign fund raising season. I want the President to win and will chip in some real cash. Sometimes I worry about my priorities---I am skimping on books, $5 a piece, and throwing money at Obama. Instead I could be buying a collector first edition of a real book, something published in 1948---for example, The Naked and the Dead by Mailer; the Space Cadet by Heinlein, or even the Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Alfred Kinsey. Perhaps I should look for writing inspiration among those books rather than in this old dog-eared copy of the Democrats' convention in 1948.