Presidential Panel Pardon: Why The Bush/Clinton Event Would Have Been A Disappointment

I was ecstatic last night when I read that Presidents Bush and Clinton would be participating in a panel this spring. As I read more about it, I grew surprised and a bit skeptical. As a regular columnist covering New York City panels, I’ve grown to expect that the speakers will reveal extremely little. So when I read that the presidents would “square off,” I wondered what that actually meant.

Not because I don’t think the two men have much to say; rather, I questioned what they actually would say. Would they be critical of each other? Would Bush blame Clinton for leaving him with unresolved issues, and would Clinton, in turn, point whatever blame back on his successor? Billed as a match of a lifetime, this event promised more than I expected it would deliver.

Although I didn’t expect the panel to be canceled – and so quickly – I did recognize what spokesman Matt McKenna did: This wasn’t going to be the event that had been advertised. It was slotted as a “moderated panel discussion” but promoted as the biggest draw in political history. Imagine white limos pulling up outside Madison Square Garden and seeing Christiane Amanpour walking a red carpet to get inside.

Panels don’t work that way, especially with big names listed on the program. After the hype had spiraled out of control, organizers did what they needed to do. Letting it sit until February and then pulling the rug out from under the audience would result in disappointment and negative reviews. Chalking it up as a miscommunication might appease people in the short run, but wouldn’t resolve the fact that the event would never match expectations dating back several months. And for that reason, despite whatever controversy the cancellation itself may spark, this was the right decision.

I’ve been to dozens of panels over the past year, many of which I enjoyed and wrote favorably about. Yet, in some cases, events have been organized, run and led so poorly that I couldn’t find much to compliment. In two of those cases, it was obvious to me that there was a blatant disconnect between the organizers and the participants.

When I heard Sidney Lumet speak in July, it was pegged as a movie night with him and his daughter. I looked forward to learning about what a great director like Lumet saw when he watched his favorite films. However, the night didn’t go as structured. Instead, I sat restlessly in my seat, listening to the Lumets share loose, random thoughts instead of cinematic insights.

The other example took place in August when Regina Spektor and Kurt Andersen shared the stage. It was immediately evident from the layout of the furniture that Spektor wouldn’t be an active member of the discussion between the moderator and Andersen. I hoped for an eclectic and unusual mix of commentary tying literature and music together. Instead, a discussion and as concert alternated every few minutes resulting in the worst of both.

If Presidents Bush and Clinton wouldn’t offer what was pledged, there was no good option to proceed. A disconnect between the promotional materials and announcements and the execution lead to panel’s doom. Had organizers carried on, forcing the presidents to conduct the panel as planned, audience members would have gone home more than merely unsatisfied. They would have been disillusioned by the panel process.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.