The latest Gallop poll puts Hillary slightly ahead of Barack in popularity among Democrats nationwide. At this point in the campaign, I have to ask, are these Hillary supporters nuts? Hasn't it gotten into their heads what the defining difference between Obama and Clinton is? Apparently not.
Some of Clinton's supporters seem to feel that the difference is in the sound bites. The sound bites are engineered and spun to establish the broad persona of the candidates. Hillary as the technocrat leader, Barack as the inspirational leader. But these are largely meaningless distinctions, because they are essentially advertising campaigns which aren't firmly grounded in facts. T
Hillary claims she is the wonky technocrat, and in support of her argument, there is widespread agreement that she comes into all policy discussions well prepared. This is certainly a good thing, but it is after all, sort of the minimum requirement of her job as Senator. She is supposed to read all the policy papers before voting . She is supposed to be well prepared. But does this make her exceptional? And more importantly, does this make her somehow better than Barack Obama? I would argue no by both measures.
An exceptional technocrat doesn't just have a strong understanding of the policies she is voting on. She actually comes up with innovative and effective policies. Has Hillary done this? No, not really. She has done a decent job as Senator (I voted for her as Senator, and look forward to doing so again), but when it comes to being a technocrat policy wonk, she's a solid journeyman, not a super start.
Is there any evidence that she is somehow more prepared on matters of policy than Barack Obama? No, not really. There is every reason to believe that Obama comes into each vote in the Senate just as prepared as Hillary. They both are well prepared, as they ought to be, because that is the requirement of their job.
In fairness, the sound bite spin machine of the Obama camp is equally guilty of trying to manufacture a virtue. Obama claims he is the inspirational leader. In support of this claim, and in support of his argument is the widespread agreement that he is an inspirational speaker. Now I am an Obama supporter, and I agree that words matter...somewhat...but the truth is, stirring speeches alone don't a priori imply effective leadership.
What irks me most is that the whole wonky vs. inspirational argument is just so condescending. It is an argument which asks voters to decide based on visceral response to these manufactured personas, as though selecting our nominee for president was like deciding which character on soap opera we liked better. In essence, it is treating us (voters) as if we were children. Sadly, it's not an ineffective technique, or it wouldn't be so universal.
To my mind, it is THE DEFINITION OF POLITICS AS USUAL. In both parties, we've grown use to policians who try to appeal to our emotions, but not our intellect. They can "feel our pain", but can't be bothered to actually explain their thinking. Either they don't think we're smart enough to understand, or they don't think they're smart enough to explain, or both. Instead, they talk to us like we're fickle emotional children.
Very few politicians ever speak to voters as though they were adults, capable of thinking about issues of any complexity. Interestingly, Bill Clinton was one of the exceptions. However Hillary is not. Listen to what she says. She's all about feeling the pain of the Democratic base, but does she ever try to explain how her policies, crafted by her supposed master technocrat mind, will actually work better? No, she doesn't. Admittedly, most politicians don't. This is why I have always contended that Hillary is very good at the business as usual brand of politics.
But Barack, even more so than Bill Clinton, actually speaks to voters as though they are adults. Contrast what he has said about the Iraq war with Hillary Clinton. Barack's position, from 2003 on, was and is that it was wrong to even start the war. We were attacked by Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, and we decided to invade a different country. True, the country was ruled by an evil tyrant, but so are a lot of countries we have no intention of going to war with. It is a country which was entirely contained militarily, and strategically, served as a counter balance to two other strategic antagonists (Al Qaeda and Iran).
Barack opposed the invasion as a strategic error, and explained his opposition in strategic terms. We know that Hillary, like most of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate voted to authorize the war, but as I've said, it was out of fear that she'd be voted out of office if she didn't (though once again,this is, by definition, the move of a political journeyman, not a leader). Now she says she's had a change of heart. But why? She has never explained, beyond the saying she agrees with the American people who are tired of George Bush's failed war. But the was and is not wrong because the American people are tired of it! Even if the American people were still as convinced as they were in 2003, it would still be wrong. It's wrong because it prevented us from pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Is is wrong because it cost half a trillion dollars that could have gone to health care, and education and jobs programs. It is wrong because it has cost the lives of thousands of Americans, and over a hundred thousand Iraqis. Sadaam Husein was an evil man, but we imposed a cure on Iraq which hasn't proven to be better for than the disease.
Barack Obama will actually say this to voters. He actually has enough respect for the voters to treat them as adults. That is what inspires me. Imagine an America where our leaders actually treat us as thinking adults, and not emotional children!
Consider Barack's speech about race in America, and his relationship Rev. Wright. Instead of appealing to our quick emotional responses, he actually took the time to talk about the issue as though we are all adults! This is what is truly inspiring. Hillary and her supporters speak disparagingly of the Obama camp as though we've been bewitched by Barack's rhetorical flourish, yet all of her efforts have been to try to capture that same emotional response for herself. She sees emotional appeal as the holy grail of her campaign. What she seems to be missing is that Barack's appeal isn't fundamentally emotional. It is that he is truly substantive, in a way which HRC, and most other politicians are not. The irony is that this kind of substantive speaking, that is, speaking to, and treating voters as thoughtful, reasoning adults, is so startling and refreshing, that it fills one with hope.
That is how Barack inspires. That is how an Obama presidency represents real change from politics as usual. That is the difference between Obama and Clinton.
Comments