Diablog: Real-time repartee

During each convention night's keynote address, watch political analysts and keyboard comedians Peter Robinson and James Norton exchange wit and wisdom in a real-time format.

Join us each convention night at 10pm (ET).

 • Tuesday night (July 27): Ted Kennedy/Teresa Heinz Kerry
 • Wednesday night (July 28): John Edwards
 • Thursday night (July 29): John Kerry

Transcript of Monday night's Diablog, featuring commentary on Hillary and Bill Clinton:

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 9:59:49 pm ET)

Welcome to Diablog. My name is Josh Burek and I'll be serving as tonight's moderator. We're pleased to welcome two distinguished guests: from the Right, Peter Robinson and from the Left, James Norton.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:04:00 pm ET)

We're experiencing technical difficulties – bear with us for just a moment.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:04:51 pm ET)

Great to be here, Josh.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:05:01 pm ET)

Technical hoo-hah notwithstanding.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:06:14 pm ET)

My own technical hitches solved, I'm here too, if a little out of high-tech breath.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:07:15 pm ET)

Tonight's spotlight shines on Hillary and Bill Clinton. Is there a danger that they will be too good – that they'll make the Kerry-Edwards ticket look flat by comparison?

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:07:55 pm ET)

I don't think so. If they shine, they project the image that the Democrats are the team to beat. Conjuring up the best of the Clinton era – and implicitly promising its return – could help Kerry a lot.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:09:10 pm ET)

My own feeling is that no one could make Edwards look flat, but that almost anyone would make Kerry look flat. It's important for Kerry that his own performance will be separated from that of Bill by three full days.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:10:23 pm ET)

I think there's another take on this, though – and it's a dynamic that I've personally witnessed. That's the "buddy movie" effect. Put someone friskier and more charismatic next to Kerry and he radiates a sort of reassuring gravitas.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:11:50 pm ET)

Well, Jim, if you've witnessed it, you've witnessed it. But I'll remain skeptical until I see it happen myself. That, of course, is really the question hanging over this entire convention: Can Kerry pull it off? Can he rise above the perception of himself as – well, you know the litany: Flat, pompous, arch, aristocratic, dull. We shall see.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:12:57 pm ET)

There's another side of Kerry that's going to emerge over the course of this convention, though – the fighter. The D.A. The guy who went after BCCI, helped wrap up POW-MIA, and helped uncover Iran-Contra. Kerry's a tough cookie, and we're living in tough times.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:13:54 pm ET)

I'll grant you that much: No one gets to be a presidential nominee with a certain adamintine core.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:14:51 pm ET)

Hold the show! There's no spell check on this dang thang, but I see now that that should be "adamantine."

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:15:55 pm ET)

Since this convention is being held here in Boston, much is being made of the city's storied political history, with special focus on the Kennedy clan. How well does Kerry fit as JFK II?

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:17:10 pm ET)

Well, there are obviously some good parallels – veteran, liberal, Bay State native.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:18:38 pm ET)

Lord, man, liberal? JFK ran to the right of Richard Nixon, arguing that the Republicans had let a "missile gap" develop, and once in office he proposed the biggest tax cut prior to that of Ronald Reagan. And on the social issues? John Kennedy would have found John Kerry's Democratic Party simply inconceivable. Abortion on demand? Gay marriage? As I say, inconceivable to JFK.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:20:16 pm ET)

Well, by that same mode of argument, Kerry's running to the right of George W. Bush, at least economically – traditionally, running up massive deficits through irresponsible giveaways were viewed as the traditional "liberal" way of doing business.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:21:51 pm ET)

Since both have published best-selling books, what's left for the Clintons to say?

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:22:56 pm ET)

I think there's an incredible amount left out there. I think the Clinton books scratch the surface of their impact, legacy, and potential – a lot of words, and lot of heft, and a lot of stuff left out. Some good, some bad, most of it critical to understanding their stories.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:23:45 pm ET)

What's left for the Clintons to say? That's easy. "I apologize."

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:24:30 pm ET)

OK, we're about hear from Senator Hillary Clinton ...

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:28:19 pm ET)

Hillary Clinton is arguably the most popular Democratic politician alive today. What is your sense of her political ambition – and timing? Will she definitely run for president? If so, when?

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:30:03 pm ET)

I'm not an obsessive Hillary Clinton watcher, so I'd hate to speculate. But there's no doubt she's positioned herself in a strong place for further advancement. She's an outspoken hawk on war issues, and she's made sure to tend to her constituents.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:31:26 pm ET)

If you're not obsessive about Hillary, Jim, I am even less so. But how do you think she's doing right now? She has a certain presence, but I don't hear anything in this speech that strikes me as much aside from routine, almost pedestrian.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:32:08 pm ET)

For a five-minute speech, she's already a minute long, by the way.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:32:39 pm ET)

I have to admit, I'm not wild about the speech, either. It seems responsible and focused, but a little calculated. The best speaking of the night that I've seen was [New Jersey Democratic Congressmen Robert] Menendez – not sure if you caught him, but it was blunt, tough, and very exciting.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:34:06 pm ET)

Mmmm. And now she seems to me to be making something of a mistake, talking about the need to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Whereas Kerry (and Hillary) can talk about doing so, W actually can do so, and I'm all but certain we'll see a raft of executive orders issuing from the White House between now and the Republican convention next month.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:39:34 pm ET)

Bill Clinton has now taken the podium ...

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:41:26 pm ET)

My preliminary comment is to state the obvious: He still has a certain irreducible animal vitality. Now to see whether he actually says anything....

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:42:12 pm ET)

"Safe and prosperous world?" "Amazing opportunities?" Mere time-filling so far....

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:45:17 pm ET)

"They need a divided America, but we don't." Well, that's clear then: Clinton has decided to attack.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:46:33 pm ET)

It seems to be asking a little much to demand that ever word Clinton speaks be a major policy statement. His point about the US alienating the world is incredibly trenchant and will become only more important as the war on terror drags on.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:46:42 pm ET)

This internationalist stuff plays in the hall, of course. But I can't imagine this is actually bringing any votes to John Kerry.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:48:40 pm ET)

In normal time, yes, the foreign-policy stuff would and should fall by the wayside of campaign rhetoric. However, we need every ally we can get and we need to avoid giving terrorists safe harbors around the world. And I think every American can appreciate that at this point.

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:50:30 pm ET)

Jim, this diablogging is new to us, and I'm finding it difficult to keep up with Clinton's comments. But he's on a roll now, a spirited attack, full of specifics (nearly all of them half-truths, but still effective). But by naming program after program that he himself enacted, Clinton is reminding me of that famous remark by LBJ back in 1964: "We're in favor of a lot of things and we're against mighty few."

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:50:57 pm ET)

Peter, do you think Clinton is gaining any traction by going after Bush on the question of unbalanced tax cuts?

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:52:58 pm ET)

Sure. It's demagoguery – as Clinton well knows, a full half of wage earners pay no taxes at all, so it's simply impossible to alter the tax code without disproportionately affecting the rich – but this stuff does indeed have traction. I can tell you from 20 years in GOP politics that virtually every Republican politician in existence worries about being attacked for tax cuts. (Reagan aside. But then the Gipper never let criticism of any kind get to him.)

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 10:55:20 pm ET)

It's one of the clear, flat-out lies that Bush has told, however – he said that by far, his tax cuts were going to people at the bottom of the economic heap. But any way you slice it, it's the super rich – and people with large investments – that have overwhelmingly made out best. A recent poll shows that most Americans don't feel as thought the Bush tax cuts have had a positive effect on them personally.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 10:55:54 pm ET)

A reader asks: "I'm curious – are we really any more partisan this year than in prior elections? With your varied backgrounds – from Reagan to Mother Jones – all of which have inspired some high levels of partisan warfare – can you put it in perspective for us?"

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 10:58:59 pm ET)

Is this year more partisan than those in the past? Washington is more partisan without a doubt – the races in the Senate, and in particular in the House, lack any of the underlying civility that I recall from the 1980s. But I suspect the principal dynamic is this: Democrats understand that they risk being shut out – losing not only Congress and the White House but the courts as well (the next president is likely to make appointments that will tip the ideological balance on federal benches). That would make the first time the Republicans had achieved national dominance since the 1920s – a prospect Democrats can only consider with a sense of intermixed nausea, disbelief, and horror.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 11:01:57 pm ET)

I'll respond a little more personally: I'm not a particularly partisan guy 𔂿 believe it or not, I've only ever registered as a Republican, to vote for John McCain. But after watching the botch-up that was Iraq, and the way the Bush administration put a higher premium on secrecy and loyalty than public service, I got involved in what has become an incredibly partisan contest. I think a lot of people have experienced similar transformations.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 11:04:25 pm ET)

Clinton's speech brings out a central theme of this campaign: the meaning of 9/11. Jim, for the Left, what is the meaning – or at least key lessons – of those terrorist attacks?

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 11:06:42 pm ET)

I think the Left is incredibly conscious of the fact that Al Qaeda is waging war on our country and our way of life. We need to make the right decisions – such as doing a thorough job in rebuilding Afghanistan, and going after Osama bin Laden, instead of Iraq – in order to keep Americans safe.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 11:08:12 pm ET)

We can't trust corporate cronies to take care of our troops, we can't cut taxes in a time of war, and we can't burn diplomatic bridges around the world when we need them most. We need a responsible president who can wage war – and build peace when the opportunity presents itself.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 11:08:51 pm ET)

Peter, same question to you. What are your thoughts on the lessons of 9/11?

Peter Robinson (Mon. 7/26, 11:09:00 pm ET)

The meaning of 9/11? For the Right – and, I very much hope, for the Left, as well – all that matters between now and election day was summed up last week by Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission: "Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible, and even probable." Our difference, of course, is that those of us on the Right are convinced that, despite his shortcomings, George W. Bush is the more serious and capable man for the signal duty of protecting the Republic. Talk to you tomorrow, Jim. Over and out.

Josh Burek (Mon. 7/26, 11:09:58 pm ET)

Gentlemen, thank you both. We'll reconvene tomorrow night.

James Norton (Mon. 7/26, 11:10:15 pm ET)

Have a great night, Peter. Talk to you tomorrow.