politics | Clinton - Obama

I've watched all of the debates, Republican and Democratic. All of them, from the early ones including the lunatic and luminary fringe, to the sit down debate three nights ago in Texas. I've supported Hillary Clinton throughout. I still hope she wins, even though it looks unlikely now, regardless of how uncool that makes me. I don't dislike Obama, quite frankly, I could be happy with him as a candidate. There's no doubt he's bright, there's no doubt he's charismatic.

I had an hour-long conversation this week about our national electoral politics. For me, national politics are not as important as local grass-roots politics, not as important as day-to-day actions, coalitions, and attempts to live together in relative flourishing and accord. That said, I've watched all the debates, read most of the articles, and know more about policy positions of candidates than most. I've corresponded with Obama's office for years.

I think there's a telling and accurate point that Obama made in the Texas debate (about five minutes into the section below):

OBAMA: Now, I think that Senator Clinton has a fine record and I don't want to denigrate that record. I do think there is a fundamental difference between us in terms of how change comes about. Senator Clinton of late has said: Let's get real. The implication is that the people who've been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional. And that, you know, the 20 million people who've been paying attention to 19 debates and the editorial boards all across the country at newspapers who have given me endorsements, including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas. You know, the thinking is that somehow, they're being duped, and eventually they're going to see the reality of things.

Well, I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. What they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well...The reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it is not just a matter of putting forward policy positions.

Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions. But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and nonperformance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways.

And then nine minutes into the following section:

OBAMA: One last point I want to make on the health care front. I admire the fact that Senator Clinton tried to bring about health care reform back in 1993. She deserves credit for that.

But I said before, I think she did it in the wrong way, because it wasn't just the fact that the insurance companies, the drug companies were battling here, and no doubt they were. It was also that Senator Clinton and the administration went behind closed doors, excluded the participation even of Democratic members of Congress who had slightly different ideas than the ones that Senator Clinton had put forward.

And, as a consequence, it was much more difficult to get Congress to cooperate. And I've said that I'm going to do things differently. I think we have to open up the process. Everybody has to have a seat at the table. And most importantly, the American people have to be involved and educated about how this change is going to be brought about.

The point is this, you know, we can have great plans, but if we don't change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen, and we're going to be four years from now debating once again how we're going to bring universal health care to this country.

This is one component of Senator Obama's stump speeches which is continually reiterated: "Washington is where good ideas go to die." He says that what we need are not more ideas, but a better way of accomplishing them. There is, of course, something to this. Our bi-partisan system can easily devolve into a petty quagmire. The quotes above point out what is a [if not the] fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama. The difference is not policy, but process. But, if the difference is one of political process, Obama's idealism may be precisely what cripples him as the future president. [With all the comparisons to Kennedy, the question about who gives you civil rights legislation (the charismatic Kennedy or the politically savvy Johnson) is apt.]

As pointed out by John Dickerson in a Slate article, "The Totally Coolest Candidate Ever: Can Obama become too hip for his own good?":

There is also plenty of self-hype to knock down. Obama is not as bold as he claims and doesn't tell as many hard truths as he professes to. His Senate record of bipartisanship is fine as far as it goes, but that isn't as big a deal as he makes it seem. Cooperating with Republicans on nuclear proliferation and lobbying reform is not nearly as hard, nor does it require the same skills, as forging agreement on taxes and spending, judicial nominations, or electronic surveillance. On the day Sen. Patrick Leahy endorsed Obama and I asked him what problem Obama could solve with his powers of bipartisanship, the Democrat from Vermont asserted Kennedy parallels rather than name one.

Obama argues in two conjoined statements that 1) "Everybody has to have a seat at the table" and 2) "most importantly, the American people have to be involved and educated about how this change is going to be brought about." While Clinton and Obama represent nearly identical views on the change they'd like to see, Obama's represents a blindingly optimistic view on the process that will be required. On the first point, for everyone to have a seat at the table, the table needs to change and those sitting around it have to give up (or have taken from them) their power. How and will this happen? The desire to play a new game in Washington, D.C., hardly guarantees that a new game will be played. You may ask why and this goes to the second point: The political apathy of the American people would have to significantly change. Obama is correct "the American people have to be involved and educated." Excitement around national campaigns is easy, as easy as calling heads or tails while a coin is in the air or putting a bumper sticker on a car. Look around. Ask an Obama supporter what they've done in the last two years to push Congress on a particular issue, what they've accomplished. Can they name their representative in their state congress? Can they name their representatives in the House? Obama's rhetoric acknowledges he cannot do this himself. The times of progressive change in this country have only taken place when the populace has been mobilized: the Populist movement around the turn of the last century, the New Deal, the civil rights movement. Obama runs the risk of wanting to play a new game only to find out that no one in Washington is willing to do so, the risk of being a lame-duck president from day one. Votes alone will not produce change. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has already been a part of an administration that ran Washington with an iron fist and has the clout to do so. The question about the process required for change, at least for an Obama presidency, is really a question about you. And, frankly, I'm not convinced, but would love to be proven wrong.

PARTING SHOTS:

Hillary's campaign has been at best rhetorically anemic. The plagiarism charge was dumb. Most of Obama's talking points could be muted by her campaign. When he says he didn't vote for the Iraq war, respond and say he wasn't around to vote and that you'll apologize to the world for both your vote and the war. When Obama touts his bipartisanship, ask why he wasn't involved in the significant bipartisan movements like the group of 14 in 2005. McCain probably has the stronger bipartisan claim here. The Clinton campaign has been petty, and rhetorically weak. We'll see what happens in the next debate, and what might be the last Democratic debate of this election, if this doesn't change.

[America's Young Theologian][Theology][Politics][Obama][Clinton]