The Difference Between Hillary and Obama
E.J. Dionne explained it very well in his latest column. I’ll refrain from commenting (too much) on it, because I think that my view is clear – that’s one – and because this post isn’t meant to convince anyone that one is better than the other, but purely as an explanation of Clinton’s downfall and Obama’s rise. Read the column in its entirety, here’s an excerpt:
There is a certain melancholy in watching Clinton do battle. Obviously aware that the bottom is falling out from under her, she choked up Monday during her last day of campaigning here. By way of proving her tenacity and the depth of her policy knowledge, she has subjected herself to unremitting rounds of questions from voters about every issue from health care to global warming.
Clinton knows her stuff and would pass the most rigorous test available under any “No Policy Left Behind” program for politicians. If we chose a president by examination rather than election, she would win. In Hampton on Sunday night, Maggie Wood Hassan, a prominent state senator, said of Clinton’s savvy on health care: “There isn’t a single piece of the puzzle she hasn’t figured out.” True, but voters right now are not thinking about intricate puzzles…
Yet if Clinton’s answers come off as well-intended lectures, Obama is offering soaring sermons and generational opportunity. In 1960, the articulate Adlai Stevenson compared his own oratory unfavorably with John F. Kennedy’s. “Do you remember,” Stevenson said, “that in classical times when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, ‘How well he spoke,’ but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, ‘Let us march.’ ” At this hour, Obama is the Democrats’ Demosthenes.
It is no accident that the two best preachers on the trail, Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee, broke through in Iowa — even if Huckabee’s prospects here and in the long run are dimmer than Obama’s. And it has to be painful for Bill and Hillary Clinton, who saw themselves 16 years ago as the heirs to John and Robert Kennedy, to watch Obama march off as the champion of a vast band of young and practical idealists.
The Clinton campaign is rooted in the idea that “Experience Counts” — ironically enough, Richard Nixon’s slogan against John Kennedy in 1960. But it is Obama who may have precisely the right experience for the mood of the moment. As a community organizer early in his professional life, Obama understood his task as catalyzing citizens into building movements for change. Obama’s speeches are about citizen action, assembling coalitions, forcing change through popular demand.
It’s interesting to note that Clinton will have to simply point out that although talk about change is nice and all, real change is what matters, and that she has a long record of causing change, etc. and that other candidates in the past who had to do the same… all lost.
I have wondered why Obama is running now with almost no experience when the Democrats have their darling in Hillary. Upon deep digging the answer to me became very clear.
Eight years from now he will have the record of a far left liberal in the senate. A consistent party "Yes" man. His record will be open to scrutiny and he will have to answer to his record.
Today he has no record and he has no footprint. He can speak of lofty Ideals and cause the people to march. Yet when you examine what record he has you can see it is firmly entrenched in far left policies. No perscription for uniting a divided country.
’ but when Obama had finished speaking, the people said, ‘Let us march.
It’s true. That’s also what progressive bloggers say about him: since he arrived in the US Senate he basically avoided voting on controversial issues, but – they say – as a Senator of Illinois he was quite progressive. Very even.
The question is of course: has he evolved?
I understand the Obama excitement, but like all emotion, it’s fickle- like starry-eyed teenage love. I can imagine a scenario where a picture of the good Senator smoking a cigarette (he’s a smoker) could evoke disallusion in the eyes of otherwise adoring fans. Still, until a flaw is inevitably revealed, the crested wave of Barack’s idealism is a huge political force, barreling over Hillary’s boring and studied technocracy. Apparently we’re starved for idealism. In the long run, however, the details and the daily grind prevail.
Apparently we’re starved for idealism
Bingo. Obama’s strategy to date has been to run a misty-eyed positive, “friendly” campaign, and let the other candidates tear each other down. So far, it’s playing well to an electorate VERY tired of the ongoing partisan snarls. But it’s not a strategy that’s likely to extend well into the general when record and specifics get beaten like gongs.
How was she planning to pay for health care? How was she going to keep our system from denigrating into the NHS of Great Britain?
I don’t remember seeing answers to those two questions. I assume the first answer would be a tax increase and pull the troops out of Iraq, but how much of a tax increase? When would she pull the troops out? How badly does she want to throw away all of the recent progress in Iraq (progress that only came about because the Bush admin was forced to change its tack because of political [sometimes overwrought] pressure brought by the Democrats)?
There is still no answer, unfortunately, about how to keep our health care system from falling into the same sorry-state that Britain’s (and Canada’s) health care system are.
Yes, I agree with that although I must say that I’m not so sure about the general election remark. It seems to me that independents are lining up behind Obama already. Them and the support of the Democratic base will deliver him the victory in the general elections if he becomes the Republican nominee.
The more I think about it, the less sure I am that the Republicans have an answer. In my mind the best answer would be Romney, but if he loses today he’s basically out.
Why not McCain? He has the experience but he lacks a message of hope and of change. It’s more of a grumpy, experienced old man. I don’t quite see how grumpy but experienced beats hope, idealism and inexperience in the current American climate.
But… things change. It’s only January.
Never forget that it was idealism that propelled Reagan to the top; Obama is going after the same model. If he succeeds, it won’t be good for the GOP or the country, but I sure it will be far worse on the Iraqi people. AQI will put on a huge push to convince Obama to yank out troops from the ‘occupation’ (his words) and we’ll have another ‘Killing fields’ situation. America’s friends will again pay a steep price.
And people wonder why America has so few friends in the world? It always seems to cost a lot more than being our enemy.
JAFAC,
There are answers, just not answers you like. Sorry.
As for Hillary being the change candidate, it’s almost as laughable as Romney trying to pick up that mantle. She represents a a return to her husband’s style of governing, which while different George W. Bush, it’s not a *fresh* approach.
The really big question I have for all the starry eyed BO fans.
Just what change is he advocating? How is he the candidate of change. What will he do that will change things?
Obama has already stated that he will begin pulling the troops out if he becomes President. AQI (not our biggest problem there, btw) doesn’t need a huge push to do that. As for it being called an occupation, that’s exactly what it is. You might want to look the word up. As for friends, I’m not sure what we’ve done to Iraq is what you do to your friend’s countries.
I suggest you go here to cure yourself of the impression that he has done nothing and here to cure yourself of the impression that he has no plans. Or you can keep talking about the Apocalypse as it relates to the election of Obama, your call
No Lynx you and your BO supporters are failing to draw the distinction.
If you go to Hillarys website you will see almost identical talking points and positions. Edwards would beat them both to the punch on all this.
Hes for equality. So is Edwards, Richardson, Hillary. He wants healthcare? So does Hillary and Edwards and Richardson. He wants this or that? So do the others. He has laid out nothing that is unique or differing and in fact the only thing that really seems to seperate Obama from Hillary is that Obama wants to run away from Iraq as fast as possible and that Hillary will take it slow.
No your missing the point. He is not about change. His positions and his ideas are as old as the party itself. Also when you look at his positions they are rejected by the GOP so how is this being a person of change.
How is his candidacy going to Unite America, change government when everything he proposes is nothing more then reworked far left talking points?
Dont point me to Obama 08. I have memorized that site trying to draw a clue as to how he really offers change.
I forgot that we had already left Iraq, implemented working class tax cuts, expanded health care coverage, resolved to reduce carbon emissions, created a online lobbying and earmark database, ended tax haven abuse, negotiated with Iran and Syria and ensured that the internet is kept open. Maybe I forgot, or Bush and Congress have been really busy the last 24 hours?
Chris you are raging against the wind. I did not say this has been done. I asked WHY?
Why is Obama the candidate of change when the others in the campaign on the democratic side want the same things he does?
What makes him the candidate of change when all he wants is the same ole stuff everyone else on his side of the isle wants?
The starry eyed minions that are his supporters cant even answer that simple question?
What makes him the candidate that will change things and supposedly unite Americans when his policies are simply Left to far left rehash of old positions?
I forgot that we had already left Iraq, implemented working class tax cuts, expanded health care coverage, resolved to reduce carbon emissions, created a online lobbying and earmark database, ended tax haven abuse, negotiated with Iran and Syria and ensured that the internet is kept open.
Yep Hillary supports this. Edwards supports this. Richardson supports this. The DNC supports this. Michael Moore wrote this.
So once again a junior senator with No experience is going to march into Washington DC and change things, when Bill Clinton proved he could work with Republicans to get things done because they needed to get done despite his base who was not all that thrilled with his deserting there talking point principals.
Hillary watched this succeed for 8 years. She is the one who would more likely get moderate things done that united the American people. What you quote here is what you and the far left want done. Not what all Americans favor.
Obamas message is a message of hope. For half the country. As always there is no moderation in his message. Just more of the same guised as "Im the candidate who will change things."
How will this agenda possibly unite a country that has differing agendas? The fact is very obvious. It will not. BO and his message of change is honest. Were going to change one inexperienced idealogue for another. Ill grant him that.
Because he is a figure that knows how to inspire and negotiate to get action on those issues. Can’t you imagine him being the kind of guy that will give one of those JFK’esque speeches about going to the moon?
He brings a fresh approach to bringing out progressive change. It’s important that through a simple speech he is able to inspire independents and former Republicans like Andrew Sullivan.
Clinton may say she wants a lot of the same changes, but what she represents is old school Washington and the Democratic establishment. She can’t escape that. It’s where her money and power comes from. If she came out of nowhere like her husband did in 1992, then maybe things would be different, but they aren’t.
John Edwards is a great alternative to Obama, and other than oratory skill, I don’t see much difference between the two. Except that Edwards is willing to criticize TPTB more readily.
And sure, some of these changes have been discussed on the left for a while, but that doesn’t mean they are bad ideas. They just haven’t found the right advocate. Perhaps until now.
He brings a fresh approach to bringing out progressive change.
I wished you guys would listen to yourself. He brings out(left to far left)change.
How in the world is that going to unite this country? How is that change? How is that any different then what weve seen for a 100 years? 200 years?
He is selling you a bill of goods. There will be no change. It will be more of the same. This time instead of Conservative values being crammed down Americas throat it will be Progressive values.
Thats change? No thats status quo.
But he isn’t talking about solving conservative problems or progressive problems. It’s about solving American problems. The problem right now is that our government isn’t actually doing anything to address the issues that are impacting the lives of average citizens.
For contrast, take Bush cramming his "conservative" ideas down our throats. He’s solving the problems of big oil, people standing to inherit money when their parents die, millionaires who feel they’re being taxed too much, pharmaceutical companies that don’t want to negotiate with the medicare/medicaid.
But his policies aren’t about going to the moon, even if his speeches are pie in the sky
Look at the policy proposals on his website- domestically his agenda is the typical type that we conservatives would call ‘womb to tomb’. The federal government, if Obama has his way, would do everything from providing job training for displaced workers to expanding the family leave act to mandate paid leave. He also vapidly talks about ‘convincing business owners’ to do certain things (just how he can convince them to things that they can’t do and remain solvent isn’t exactly explained.)
The point is, lofty speeches are nice but they don’t inspire people to go where they don’t want to go. And there are definitely a large number of people who will not want to embrace the policies that he proposes (nor to pay the tax increases to finance them.) Yet he doesn’t explain how his unity would include the folks who disagree with him.
Chris: people who identify as conservative don’t agree with the ‘progressive’ solutions, it’s as simple as that. Do you really not see that?
Then don’t vote him C Stanley. But it’s unfair to attack Obama for not offering change, just because it’s not the type of change you want.
Which is why I never attacked him for that. I do in fact think he wants change, but change in the progressive direction which I don’t favor.
My specific criticism is that he pretends that everyone is just going to unify around the changes that he wants to bring. That’s no different than when GWB said he was a unifier- except that Obama’s more eloquent when he says it.
IOW, you’re right to say that I can just decide not to vote for Obama- but if he wins, he’s then my president too. So how does he then bring me into the fold if he’s doing things I oppose? Don’t you see that this is where the ‘unity’ breaks down?
I personally don’t give a damn about unity. I think this country needs to tackle some big issues that lots of people won’t like, so my heart really isn’t in this particular argument.
However I’d like to repeat:
For contrast, take Bush cramming his "conservative" ideas down our throats. He’s solving the problems of big oil, people standing to inherit money when their parents die, millionaires who feel they’re being taxed too much, pharmaceutical companies that don’t want to negotiate with the medicare/medicaid.
You can’t deny there is a difference there.
Well, Chris, what it boils down to is that you want someone to cram the ideas that you agree with down the throats of those of us who disagree with you. And that’s not a problem for me as long as you’re honest about it. But you entered this discussion saying that Obama knows how to inspire and get action on those issues. If he’s going to do it by cramming it down people’s throats, then that’s a bit different than doing it through inspiring speeches.
Christine, what I personally like the most about Obama is how radically he departs from the "do it my way or you are an evil neocon bastard" approach that has become so commonplace from so many on the left. He definitely prefers so-called "progressive" policy options, but a careful review of his policy positions on his web site shows that he almost always prefers methods of implementation that try to include at least some components that search for common ground with those who would normally be opponents.
In short, what Chris rather inaccurately asserts is a "cram it down their throats" characteristic that is ONLY from the Bush administration is, in reality, just as commonly a characteristic of left-leaning demagogues as well. In fact, I personally have seen and experience FAR more demonization, name-calling, and abuse from adherents of leftism than I have seen from any on the right, even if we include all the “patriotism” references from the Bush administration that are the subject of so very much complaint in spite of the fact that they appear to have never resulted in any actual action. But Obama doesn’t appear to be one of those that demonize and hate all opposition, and that makes him more attractive than some of the alternatives, particularly Edwards. And Obama deserves to get recognized for that difference.
Okay C Stanley,
I’ve had some time to think some more about this issue of bringing people together. And I’ve come to a conclusion: If you oppose all his policy ideas, then you’re out of luck. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect you or your leaders.
Obama, in a nutshell, is an awesome salesman for progressive ideas. What he offers is a chance to bring in independents and what are normally people who don’t care about politics into the fold. And along the way, with his conciliatory tone and uplifting message, he’ll likely convince some Republicans to come along too.
What he’s not running as is a centrist, but as someone who will actually make the case for the changes he wants to make, and will try to create big alliances to make sure they actually happen.
That’s pretty damn different from Bush’s 50% + 1 strategy.
Yeah, I basically agree with Jason. If you leave aside the inaccurate accusation that I believe that only George W. Bush is carrying out the "cram it down their throats" approach.
Well, Chris, it is the only version that you ever seem willing to acknowledge or talk about at any length, so you’ll have to forgive my misunderstanding.
but a careful review of his policy positions on his web site shows that he almost always prefers methods of implementation that try to include at least some components that search for common ground with those who would normally be opponents.
I would be interested in your analysis of this Jason. Perhaps a few examples where he is searching for common ground.
I provided one example in my post on Obama: Immigration.
Jason: I get your point but I think beyond just saying that he’d seek broad coalitions to support his policies, there’s an obligation to explain how he’d do that (particularly on issues that relate to the economy, taxation, and business- because his stated policy positions seem like the boilerplate liberal ones and I see little reason to think that businesses are going to be so wowed by his rock star appeal that they’ll decide to voluntarily make concessions to workers that would bankrupt them, or to accept tax increases because Obama says it’s the right thing to do.)
I understand about immigration- but that’s an issue that doesn’t fit neatly into a right-left construct anyway.
Chris: I think you’re at least now being more honest about the politics of polarization.
It doesn’t mean that he does, either, though, does it? And having someone say ‘you’re out of luck’ pretty much guarantees that they aren’t going to feel that their views are being respected. There are then only a couple of ways to proceed; either you forget about being conciliatory and proceed with the throat cramming (as in Bush’s 50 + 1), or you step back and see if a compromise really is possible, or perhaps compromise in terms of giving up something else that the opposing coalition wants from your side in order to make gains for your side on a particular issue. I don’t have any idea which way Obama would proceed, do you? That’s what a lot of us are trying to point out about the lofty rhetoric about unity- it will break down as soon as we get to any one particular policy debate.
And getting back to your general feelings about unity and progressive policy; wouldn’t you agree or admit that basically you think it’s not OK for conservatives to force their policies on the 50% who disagree with them but it is OK in reverse for progressives to do so because you believe that the progressives care about the problems of everyday Americans? That this gives them a higher moral ground?
I can understand that sentiment, but what you have to also realize is that conservatives are always highly skeptical of government based solutions for the problems of everyday Americans, and we dislike progressive liberal politics which has abandoned the classical liberal idea that most people’s lives are much better off if government stays out of them as much as possible. It’s funny that this is probably perfectly obvious to you on social issues but not economic ones.
I have to say that while I respect Jason’s analyst of Obama I find I cannot accept his conclusion because his conclusion is steeped in speculation. He suspects based up his reading of his website that Obama will be moderate.
My reading of Obama’s website does not support his conclusions. However my assessment and conclusion is speculation as well because of the very point I continue to point out about Obama. He has almost no track record. His track record as a state senator was very progressive (far left) His track record in the senate has been the liberal voters dream.
Last night I listened to CNN. I thought it was just me but suddenly out of no where one of the commenters responded to a question by saying that Obama is considerably farther left of Hillary and it is this far left position that he has to reconcille with a party that is not as far left as the progressives who are fastly trying to hijack the party much as the Christian Coalition Hijacked the Republican party in the 80’s.
I thought It was just me who was seeing Obama as a far left progressive who is trying to slip in the back door. Last night in New Hampshire the voters saw it too and they have rejected his Charisma I believe because they understand as do I that as a far left idealogue he will bring more contentious polarization to the White House. Not less.
His house on the hill speech will last only so long and then he must start answering questions about pure policy. Lets see how he does now that the lid has been removed and hes going to have to campaign instead of Go on the Obama rock star tour 08. Because lets be honest there are only so many 18-24 year olds that can keep him and his rock start tour propped up.