Bill Clinton’s speech was excellent for all the reasons I thought Julián Castro’s speech the previous evening was weak. In confusing times， good leaders can help the public understand our politics， and as Obama himself has admitted， he has not always excelled at this over the last few years. But it’s long been Bill Clinton’s special gift. Indeed， Clinton’s frustration with his party’s inability to explain what’s going on politically in this country helped encourage him to write his recent book， “Back To Work.” （In it， he tells a story about being rebuffed when he tried to give the Democratic National Committee some advice on talking points for the 2010 election.） This was not so much a speech about Obama， but one about the choice voters face and the framework they should use in making it.

我認(rèn)為，無論從哪方面來講，在幾天前晚上的民主黨全國(guó)代表大會(huì)上，相比朱利安 · 卡斯特羅可謂弱暴了的表現(xiàn)，克林頓的演說堪稱完美。在動(dòng)蕩年代，優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人有能力讓公眾了解國(guó)家的政策，正如奧巴馬承認(rèn)的，在過去幾年里，他始終無法在這點(diǎn)上有所突破，相比之下，克林頓在這方面的能力似乎是與生俱來的。的確，民主黨缺乏讓公眾了解國(guó)家政策走向的能力，這著實(shí)讓克林頓苦惱萬分，也促使他出版了新書《重返工作》。（他在書中提到了民主黨國(guó)家委員會(huì)曾駁回他針對(duì)2010年美國(guó)中期選舉的論點(diǎn)，注：共和黨在該選舉中大獲全勝）克林頓這次演說并不是關(guān)于奧巴馬，更多的是選民所面臨的選擇以及他們?nèi)绾握_作出選擇。

Clinton started with a favorite subject of his： the co?peration that he sees among parties trying to solve problems around the world through his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. However， here in the U.S.， despite President Obama’s best efforts， an unreasonable and ideological political faction has made co?peration impossible. From there he pivoted to recent history， making a seemingly dispassionate case for why no President， even Clinton himself， could ever have repaired in four years all the damage Obama found when he arrived in the White House in 2009. But despite that， Obama’s record， told with excruciating but powerfully persuasive detail， has been far better than is popularly understood. Now he just needs his contract renewed to finish the job. Clinton made it all sound so simple.

克林頓用他喜歡的話題作為演說的開場(chǎng)白：他發(fā)現(xiàn)，在克林頓全球倡議機(jī)構(gòu)的工作中，各黨派能通過合作處理全球性問題。但在美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)，不理性、理想化的政治派別讓奧巴馬即使費(fèi)盡心思也無法實(shí)現(xiàn)合作。緊接著他將話題轉(zhuǎn)向一個(gè)看似無關(guān)的事件：在過去幾年里，為何沒有一位總統(tǒng)，包括克林頓自己在內(nèi)，能夠解決2009年奧巴馬入駐白宮時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)的所有問題。盡管如此，那些令人揪心卻極具說服力的事實(shí)表明，奧巴馬的政績(jī)已大大超出公眾的理解?，F(xiàn)在，奧巴馬只需獲得連任就能完成他的任務(wù)?？肆诸D的演說讓這一切聽起來如此簡(jiǎn)單。

This was the anti-Michelle speech. While she naturally gave personal testimony about Barack Obama’s character and urged voters to support him on that basis， in the story Clinton told Obama was an ephemeral figure. There were few personal details or anecdotes about the President because Clinton isn’t particularly close to Obama. It was a speech about facts and three and a half years of decisions made and outcomes achieved. By the end of it， the only logical conclusion， Clinton argued， is that Obama would do a better job than the alternative.

演說中克林頓對(duì)米歇爾 · 奧巴馬持反對(duì)態(tài)度。盡管米歇爾 · 奧巴馬理所當(dāng)然地從個(gè)人角度佐證了奧巴馬杰出的品質(zhì)，并借此呼吁選民支持奧巴馬，但克林頓用事例表明奧巴馬良好的個(gè)人形象并不是長(zhǎng)久之計(jì)。由于克林頓與奧巴馬的關(guān)系并不怎么親密，因此演說中未提及奧巴馬的個(gè)人細(xì)節(jié)或軼事，而只有諸多事實(shí)以及三年半以來奧巴馬所做的決定和結(jié)果。最后，克林頓順理成章地總結(jié)道：奧巴馬會(huì)比其他候選人表現(xiàn)得更好。

In a sense， Clinton’s reluctance to embrace Obama personally， and his own fraught history with the President， which I explored in a piece for The New Yorker this week， makes him the ideal spokesman to appeal to those skeptical former Obama voters that his campaign is trying to win back. In an interview with Brian Williams earlier in the day， Clinton said of Obama， “We haven’t been close friends a long time or anything like that， but he knows that I support him.” I found it an amazingly honest statement considering that politicians often go out of their way to exaggerate their fondness for one another.

克林頓不愿以個(gè)人名義支持奧巴馬，其執(zhí)政歷史也并不順坦（在本周紐約客中，我發(fā)表文章深入討論了這點(diǎn)）。從某種意義上講，要告訴那些心存疑慮的奧巴馬曾經(jīng)的擁護(hù)者，奧巴馬正在力挽狂瀾贏得本次大選，克林頓是最理想的演說人選。今天早些時(shí)候在布萊恩 · 威廉姆斯的采訪中，克林頓這樣評(píng)價(jià)奧巴馬：“我們一直以來都不算是密友，但他知道我支持他?！闭渭彝ǔ?huì)不遺余力地夸耀自己對(duì)某人的崇拜之心，因此，克林頓誠(chéng)懇的言辭讓我感到吃驚。

And it was exactly their lack of personal chemistry and failure to become “close friends” that gave Clinton’s speech its lift. A subtext of the address was that， just like Bill Clinton， wavering voters need not love Obama to understand that he’s a better choice than Romney. When the two Presidents came together and hugged after the speech was （finally） over， the distance between them made their embrace all the more powerful.

正是由于兩人之間并不來電，關(guān)系也沒那么鐵，克林頓的演講便更具說服力。演說的主旨在于，忠誠(chéng)簇?fù)淼闹С终邞?yīng)該像克林頓那樣，沒有必要因?yàn)橐晩W巴馬為偶像才認(rèn)為他比羅姆尼好。演講最后，兩位總統(tǒng)走到一起相互擁抱，他們之間依舊保持的那份距離讓一切變得更具影響力。