Big Crowds

I don't want my skepticism about Barack Obama's messaging strategy to totally obscure the point, driven home by Garance Franke-Ruta's photo shown above and her post here, that these Obama mega-rallies are a hugely impressive phenomenon. They signify both the candidate's considerable personal appeal, the strong appeal of his message has to a certain demographic (one that includes me), and also the broader re-engagement with politics and public life that's been one of the few good consequences of the disaster of 21st century American governance.

One of the things that worries me about the prospect of Mark Penn once again becoming king of the political hill is that his approach to politics seems antithetical to this concept of mass engagement. Instead, it's a model where you break the population down into the smallest possible groups, and assemble a winning coalition of stitched-together wedges of people each engaged through their own micro-initiative. That's not all there is to Hillary Clinton or to the broader case of Clinton-style centrism. Indeed, it's quite different from (in some ways the reverse of) the initial critique of interest-group liberalism with which the DLC launched itself. And in the best moments of her campaign -- the health care plan, the day care plan -- Clinton has completely gone beyond the inane politics of "are archery moms the new soccer moms?" but all that's been in no small part responsive to the new new politics of John Edwards, Andy Stern, and Barack Obama.

Which comes back to the point, I guess, that a whole ton of people stood around a pretty long time yesterday evening in order to get a not necessarily very good view (some people had good views, but it looked like a lot of rally-goers had bad sightlines) of a man talking about politics. There's got to be some significance to that.

Comments

Matthew, are you aware that newcomers to your blog are likely to not understand massive parts of your articles? I mean, what is the archery/soccer sentence about? Give some context, man -- or you'll lose me, and many more. Thanks in advance.

Posted by Robin Archer | September 28, 2007 4:31 PM

"Which comes back to the point, I guess, that a whole ton of people stood around a pretty long time yesterday evening in order to get a not necessarily very good view ... of a man talking about politics. There's got to be some significance to that."

Sure. The intense appeal to a very enthusiastic and visible demographic subgroup gives him a big fundraising boost, much as it did for Howard Dean last time around.

So the enthusiasm benefits the campaign by allowing them to buy ads to reach folks over 25.

-----

"One of the things that worries me about the prospect of Mark Penn once again becoming king of the political hill is that his approach to politics seems antithetical to this concept of mass engagement. "

Yup.

Both Obama and Edwards have a populist political engagement that would be far better for the Party than Hillary's defensive crouch.

Johnny's populist appeal is just better aimed demographically and geographically than Barack's, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 4:36 PM

Eh. Nothing new. Matt may be too young to remember, but his demographic was similarly "reengaged in politics" by a candidate in '91-'92: Jerry Brown. Brown was all about appealing to the young people, transcending politics, eschewing large donations, etc.

It's also important to remember the herding instinct of young twenty-somethings, which helps fill these sorts of events. It needn't be a politician speaking. The recent flash mob phenomena was made use of this herding instinct.

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 4:45 PM

Is it just me, or does that green blotch next to Obama look suspiciously like...salad?

Lisa vindicated!

Posted by Royko | September 28, 2007 4:50 PM

"Matt may be too young to remember, but his demographic was similarly "reengaged in politics" by a candidate in '91-'92: Jerry Brown ... The recent flash mob phenomena was made use of this herding instinct."

Fred travels near the rough neighborhood of something interesting here.

Obama is drawing bigger crowds than previous Jerry Brown type figures. And I think it's due to technological advances in mass sociability.

Flash mobs weren't technologically possible in '91-'92.

Crowds like Dean and Obama have mobilized, which are heavily young, are made possible by very recent technological advances enabling mass youth sociability over distance.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 4:53 PM

hey! Jerry Brown was the first candidate I ever gave money to. I was a youngster then. Now I'm giving in wee increments as a matching donor, to Obama, and I've noticed that my matches are all coming from New York today [except one from Massachussets] so this rally may have done some good.

Posted by Phoebe | September 28, 2007 5:04 PM

It may be that Obama will turn out to be much ado about nothing. And I'm entirely convinced that he needs to move into a higher gear sooner rather than later, assuming he's got that gear. But I also find, living far, far from the centers of media power in New York and DC, that the Hillary-is-inevitable narrative doesn't make much sense on the ground out here. There's just too much skepticism among those people who are paying attention, coupled with disinterest from the many, many people who haven't begun to tune in yet. And given the size of the crowds Obama's drawing along with the numbers of people donating to his campaign, maybe that narrative doesn't make much sense along the I-95 corridor either.

Of course, all of this should probably be filtered through the fact that I find the notion of another Clinton candidacy/presidency depressing -- on the grounds of the potential impact of dynastic politics, antiquated generational infighting, and the vitriol she inspires. Still, despite my personal prejudices, it really does seem too early to know much of anything yet, regardless of whether Senator Clinton would like to be anointed as the nominee. I know the it's-too-soon-to-judge argument is out there. But it often seems to get drowned out by the Clinton-can't-be-beaten counterargument.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. Still, I'm grateful to Matt and others for covering Obama critically but generously.

Posted by ANMIK | September 28, 2007 5:10 PM

Of course, MattY might have acknowledged that, per GFR, Obama just gave his standard speech. So, he wasn't so much "talking about politics" as he was basically like a yout-oriented band playing their standard set.

Perhaps instead of posting things like this, MattY might consider encouraging politicians to break from their stock speeches, or consider encouraging others from asking them questions designed to get them off the script.

For a tangible example, I watched part of this earlier today:

youtube.com/watch?v=f3eghej9-eg

That's highly similar to what he said during the past two debates, and IIRC it's highly similar to what he said here:

youtube.com/watch?v=wxZdEJdh8ss

He manages to combine not really saying anything with saying the same thing over and over, and people like MattY keep pretending he's actually saying something.

Posted by TLB | September 28, 2007 5:19 PM

"I know the it's-too-soon-to-judge argument is out there. But it often seems to get drowned out by the Clinton-can't-be-beaten counterargument."

There is partial truth is both arguments. She's quite beatable, but she's also in a very strong defensive position.

Run this race ten times and she'll win more than zero but less than ten. That's why they don't play the games on paper.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 5:22 PM

"Flash mobs weren't technologically possible in '91-'92."

No, but young lefties still had ways to organize at the grassroots, using old-fangled technology like phones. The Brown campaign coordination was pretty extensive -- Brown would actually sleep in supporters' houses on the trail. If memory serves, Jerry Brown also had a senior campaign adviser who was a French film director, who helped choreograph Brown's image.

Hard to believe that the lefty candidate back then was proposing a flat tax.

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 5:22 PM

TLB, it is only reporters and groupies who follow a candidate from rally to rally, and thus they are the only ones who become jaded by the repetition of a stump speech. For 90% of rally-goers, they're hearing it for the first time. You probably already knew that, of course, and you're just trying to come up with a lead-in before you segue into your standard ax-grinding.

ANMIK, I'm under the impression that it is only inside the Beltway that any Democrats really have a problem with Clinton. Outside-the-beltway base of primary voters is more or less behind her and regard Obama and Edwards merely as fresh faces who are just distracting from the candidate they feel they know the best. While you may claim that the people who are paying attention outside the beltway don't like Clinton, I would venture to argue that the wide majority of people who aren't paying attention give her a lot of support, and they're probably the ones that matter.

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 5:26 PM

Fred, the flat tax was why I gave him money!

Posted by Phoebe | September 28, 2007 5:29 PM

Something I didn't realize about Jerry Brown until I had a chance to hear him speak and conversed with him for a few minutes in 2002 is what an incredibly inarticulate speaker he is. He's a very interesting person, but his sentences come out like near gibberish. I wanted to publish an article about the heretical things he said about poverty in the speech I heard him give, but I couldn't reduce the transcript to readable quotes.

Considering what a long, fairly impressive political career Brown has had -- winning numerous Presidential primaries in both 1976 and 1992 -- despite this handicap, it's easy to see how a hyper-articulate speaker like Obama might go very far indeed.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 28, 2007 5:31 PM

Fred is onto something in that you can probably draw a straight line in demographic appeal from Eugene McCarthy to Jerry Brown to Howard Dean to Barack Obama. It's a tribute to the egos of politicians that they can use this same appeal cycle after cycle but tell themselves, "Ah, but for ME, things will be different!" That said, if it is young 20-somethings who are distinguished for their "herding instinct," why is it that their candidates tend to lose? It's because there is a herding instinct of middle-aged people that is simply larger.

Incidently, I liked Jerry Brown, but my first choices were Kerrey and Tsongas back in '92.

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 5:34 PM

" I'm under the impression that it is only inside the Beltway that any Democrats really have a problem with Clinton."

Not quite the way to think about it. High information, politically active Dems all across the country have a problem. In fact, Clinton almost definitely has a better level of support among high information Dems inside the Beltway than she does outside the Beltway.

-----

"I would venture to argue that the wide majority of people who aren't paying attention give her a lot of support"

Of course. That's why she easily leads off-year national polling.

"and they're probably the ones that matter."

The large bulk of folks who aren't paying attention right now will suddenly start paying a lot of attention just before and after Iowa. That's when it gets interesting, and that's when Clinton is vulnerable.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 5:34 PM

"Matt may be too young to remember, but his demographic was similarly "reengaged in politics" by a candidate in '91-'92: Jerry Brown ...

Speaking of Brown, I recall that he voluntarily refused to accept campaign contributions unless they were written on personal checks in amounts not to exceed $1,500 per year.

When we have a political party whose candidates voluntarily agree to similar rules, then I'll have something to vote for. Until then, I just can't get excited about a system that allows us to decide which paid whores will represent the elites until the next election.

This is the cause the internet ought to be used for. Instead, it's just become a mirror of the MSM, echoing all the vacuous nonsense that has become our politics.

Posted by kafka | September 28, 2007 5:46 PM

Yes, I'm with Petey here -- at least in part -- based solely on my cursory reading of polling and my incredibly sophisticated ability to extrapolate from tiny data sets: my own experience and that of friends and colleagues. High-info Dems generally seem more resistant to Clinton's inevitability. There are likely lots of reasons for this, though I'm inclined to chalk their skepticism up to being well informed.

That said, I'm more interested in Petey's second point: that high-info Dems inside the Beltway are more likely to support HRC. And here's where I'm on thin ice, I suppose, but my guess is that, assuming this is true, it's a pretty standard case of a professional class backing the most likely winner, who, in turn, will then protect their interests. Which goes to Petey's earlier point: run the race ten, a hundred, a thousand times, and more often than not, knowing what we know now, Clinton wins. The professional political class, and allied professional classes, have the most to gain by backing the winner. And they also have the most to gain by backing the closest thing we have to a status-quo Democratic candidate, as it's their status that is quo. Or something like that.

Anyway, HRC has a big lead in California for the moment, or so it seems. But that's largely, my political scientist chums tell me, as likely as not because nobody out here is really paying any attention to the race. There's almost no advertising out here, very few bumper stickers as yet (though Obama's outnumber his opponents, it seems, by several orders of magnitude), and not much coverage at all on local news or in local papers. By contrast, those who are paying close attention, the political junkies like me, are far more skeptical (or so I'm told by the political science faculty).

And so I return to: we'll have to wait and see. Clearly Senator Clinton appears better positioned by most measures than her opponents (though, as we all know, she's the best known and has, by far, the highest unfavorables, even among Dems). But, as Petey says, we allow these things to play out in real life not just on paper. Crowds of multiple thousands of people, as Matt originally suggested, are amazing at this stage of the game. Now if only Obama can find that next gear.

Posted by ANMIK | September 28, 2007 5:58 PM

Exciting, inspiring candidates who appeal to young voters over issues of fundamentally changing politics make good speeches and look good in campaign commercials. Politicians who respect different audiences and groups and who build coalitions of unions, businesses, trial lawyers, and advocacy groups (senior citizens, environmentalists, etc.) win elections. College students and bloggers don't cut it. Had Obama spent the past year preparing to run for President by trying to gain the support of Democratic-leaning interest groups rather than make speeches about the "smallness of our politics" and "the audacity of hope" -- whatever those things mean to anyone -- than maybe he'd be positioned to more seriously challenge Hillary than he is now. Instead, any good idea he may have and any case he has about his superior judgment are, for the time being, going to waste.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | September 28, 2007 6:00 PM

good to see someone recalling youth populist candidates before 1976. don't forget the one who actually won: jfk.

Posted by old guy | September 28, 2007 6:05 PM

good to see someone recalling youth populist candidates before 1976. don't forget the one who actually won: jfk.

Posted by old guy | September 28, 2007 6:06 PM

Obama's 2008 theme of transcending partisan politics reminds me of Nixon's 1968 theme of "Bring Us Together."

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 28, 2007 6:06 PM

Isn't the appeal of Obama to readers of this blog the hope that he'll succeed in putting one over on the American public: that he'll get elected by creating the impression that he's a centrist who will bring us together, but that he will then govern from the left?

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 28, 2007 6:09 PM

The establishment candidate invariably wins the primary race unless something really random occurs. The Clinton campaign is polished and disciplined enough to ensure that nothing unexpected occurs. Thus, I would claim that she pretty much has a lock on the nomination. Events in Iowa may prove me wrong, but if the low information voters in concert with the "establishment" didn't basically rule the roost, then McCain would have been the nominee in 2000.

I'll go so far as to say that all the Obama enthusiasm is much ado about nothing. Dean's insurgent campaign had some more credibility because the supposed frontrunner, Kerry, was in the midst of having his campaign implode making the nomination Dean's to lose (which he did).

Obama's campaign is similar to Jerry Brown's and John McCain's in that it is a campaign that is competing with an establishment candidate who enjoys wide, wide support. Obama's only chance is if Clinton implodes on her own, leaving Obama to pick up the pieces. But if Clinton doesn't do anything wrong, there's little Obama could do to break through, despite the big crowds.

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 6:09 PM

Phoebe,

Interesting that you donated to Brown because of his flat tax and now to Obama who, like the rest of the Dem candidates, favors a more steeply progressive income tax.

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 6:13 PM

Right, Fred, because 15 years of experience and accumulated wisdom couldn't possibly result in a change in someone's policy preferences and priorities!

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 6:17 PM

Actually, Steve, he appeals to me for at least three reasons: youth, meaning he'll move beyond viewing the world and his domestic allies and opponents through a lens crafted in the Vietnam era; race/background, meaning that he'll demonstrate to the nation and the world that our diversity really can be our strength (y'see, it's not just a bumper sticker); intellect, meaning that I have faith -- almost certainly too much faith -- in the idea that smart, inquisitive people can solve problems more effectively than, well, than the alternative.

And Tyro, the question is whether HRC's support is miles wide and only inches deep or deeper than that. If her support is even half as deep as it is wide, you're likely right, she'll win. But a lot of polling seems to indicate that her support isn't very deep at all. And that, to me at least, seems to be the key variable. Along with, as you and Petey intimate, the likely intrusion of events on what now appear to be foregone conclusions.

Posted by ANMIK | September 28, 2007 6:19 PM

"Had Obama spent the past year preparing to run for President by trying to gain the support of Democratic-leaning interest groups rather than make speeches about the "smallness of our politics" and "the audacity of hope" -- whatever those things mean to anyone -- than maybe he'd be positioned to more seriously challenge Hillary than he is now."

Yup.

The Obama folks are now in position where they have a perfectly nominatable candidate who basically can't secure the nomination unless Edwards and Clinton collide in a very specific manner and allow him to skate through untouched.

It's a dumb strategy if the goal is to take the oval office in January 2009, but it's a smart strategy if the goal is preserving the Obama brand to fight another day.

Edwards, on the other hand, due to his lack of a political future were he to lose this race, has run a campaign that puts him in position to actually surpass Clinton under his own power with only very limited luck needed.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 6:19 PM

One non-political example of early-twenties herding instinct: When I was in college there was a huge industrial fire in NJ. A friend and I were drove to his parents' house forty miles away from the fire and we could see the flames from there. So we drove toward them. What did we find when we got in the vicinity? Hundreds of twenty-somethings clambering on foot to get a closer view, despite the cops trying to shoe them away. We came to our senses after a few minutes and left.

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 6:20 PM

Fred,
I'm not a single-issue voter, and I like Obama for a whole host of other reasons. I do think he's sincere about wanting to "bring us together" - I understand the desire to work with people rather than against them. It takes longer but the results are much more solid and longer lasting. And he has achieved impressive results with exactly this method, so it's not empty blather.

Posted by Phoebe | September 28, 2007 6:22 PM

"Right, Fred, because 15 years of experience and accumulated wisdom couldn't possibly result in a change in someone's policy preferences and priorities!"

Tyro, I said it was "interesting", not impossible. Now what do you say we let Phoebe tell us why herself?

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 6:23 PM

Fred, that anecdote is an example of a "herding instinct" only if you and your friend saw lots of other 20-somethings heading in that direction and decided to follow them. As it was, you all made an independent decision to go see it, just as people in a different demographic made an independent decision not to.

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 6:28 PM

I'm a few years older than Matt, old enough to remember Jerry Brown, but I worked for Barack Obama and Barack Obama is a friend of mine. Jerry Brown was no Barack Obama.

Posted by old man | September 28, 2007 6:49 PM

He may not be, Barack Obama that is, but Brown is apparently considering a run at the governor's mansion in California. In other words, "Jerry Brown was no Barack Obama," probably shouldn't be in the past tense.

Posted by ANMIK | September 28, 2007 7:05 PM

Just wanted to take issue with a couple things.

One, you cannot draw a straight line in demograph appeal from Brown to Dean to Obama. Obama's crowds are remarkable in large part because of their demographic uniquness. Diversity in age and ethnicity that separates him strongly from Dean (I'm unfamiliar with Brown). As a non-Dean supporter who was friends with Dean supporters and went to a couple events, and an Obama supporter who's been to his events, I can tell you: the two are highly dissimilar in their appeals. No way Dean would clean up the black vote in SC, for example, or attract moderate Christian Republicans in rural Iowa the way Obama has.

Two, I think Obama is in much stronger position now than people realize. The belief that he's a long shot is based on a misreading of polls. For example, read Mark Blumenthal just yesterday on NH trends. The CW says Obama is tanking there, Clinton has opened up a huge lead, throughout the summer his campaign just idled or regressed, etc etc.

What does Blumenthal find? To the extent Clinton has gained ground, it's all been among low-information voters who aren't paying attention to the campaign; i.e., shaped by the media "front-runner" narrative we've been pounded with all summer. Meanwhile, look at Obama's favorables: they went up 11 points over the summer, while Hillary and Edwards barely moved. Looking at favorables, 2 candidates had a bad summer: Edwards and Clinton. Counter-intuitive? Yeah, if all your information is coming from pundits, who are, more often than not, completely wrong.

Posted by mopper | September 28, 2007 7:12 PM

To respond to Sailer, I prefer to see an Obama administration because (besides the fact that I think he's very smart and capable) I hold out hope, however naively, that he might have the ability to induce less-insane behavior from the right wing than we would see in a Clinton administration. When/if Hillary wins, we're just going to see an endless parade of murder accusations again and, I think, the worst-case level of Republican obstructionism. I think things would be better under an Obama administration, wherever he "governs from."

Posted by Steve V | September 28, 2007 7:18 PM

"Fred, that anecdote is an example of a "herding instinct" only if you and your friend saw lots of other 20-somethings heading in that direction and decided to follow them."

Tyro, I should have elaborated a little. Allow me to do so now. My friend and I were drawn by curiosity, but when we got there, it became clear that others were drawn because they thought a lot of their peers would be there too. e.g., we overheard a girl mention to her friend excitedly that this was "just like Sleepless in Seattle". Then, a minute later, she and her friend were being helped over a fence by a couple of fellows and they struck up conversations; we saw more of this sort of thing in the few minutes we were there. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned this as an example of herding instinct.

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 9:09 PM

"To respond to Sailer, I prefer to see an Obama administration because (besides the fact that I think he's very smart and capable) I hold out hope, however naively, that he might have the ability to induce less-insane behavior from the right wing than we would see in a Clinton administration."

Elements of the elite Right have already signaled that they would be willing to work with a President Hillary, if she sticks with the centrist tack she took for most of her first term in the Senate. See, for example, the editorial praising her position on Iran in today's WSJ, or the donations she's received from Wall Street firms and Rupert Murdoch.

Obama is smart, affable, and an excellent speaker. He'd make a great college professor or perhaps a union president along the lines of Andy Stern. He is woefully unqualified to be President of the United States though, IMO. Lawyer, racial activist, state legislator, a couple years in the Senate, and zero executive experience. Of the candidates in either party, Romney appeals to me because he's the kind of intelligent, super-successful American leader that usually eschews politics. He's run large organizations, handled budgets, turned companies around, etc. He's got an MBA and a JD from Harvard, and he has successful executive experience in business, non-profit (turning around the SLC Olympic committee) and government. He'd be my first choice, but if it has to be a Dem next year, Hillary seems like the least-bad option.

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 9:27 PM

Elements of the elite Right have already signaled that they would be willing to work with a President Hillary

This is true. With the blessing of Rupert Murdoch and the fact that Scaife has stopped writing checks to support right-wingfishing expeditions, it pretty much seems that the elite Right is either resigning themselves to a Clinton presidency and trying to negotiate terms, or figuring that if a Democrat is going to be elected in 2008, they might as well get behind a candidate they feel closest to. This is another sign that, I think, Clinton has really bagged the nomination, absent some kind of public meltdown/scandal.

The question is whether the right's base, who have spent the past 15 years obsessing over both Clintons, will follow their elite's lead.

He is woefully unqualified to be President of the United States though

If you're so concerned about someone's qualifications for the presidency, you should have been campaigning for Gore back in '00 and, in fact, should be agitating for him to jump into the race now. An Edwards or Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) candidacy is appealing just for the purpose of being able to call Bush supporters partisan hypocrites for the entire campaign cycle every time they try to claim that they're unqualified ('specially if Thompson is the nominee).

And Romney? Well, I just don't trust investment bankers as a general rule, so he's not even a consideration. To say nothing of the fact that his tenure in MA was simply an exercise in his becoming bored after a couple of years and deciding to run for president.

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 9:48 PM

I agree with nearly all the posts above. Barack Obama's a breath of fresh air from the Penn/Clinton scene. I also like that he talks of ideals, but is also a realist. I want someone that isn't jaded, someone that's smart, someone who might try to lead in a righteous direction. Also, Michelle Obama can be incredibly inspiring -- video here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/17/michelle-obama-speaks/

Posted by Beth | September 28, 2007 10:13 PM

"Well, I just don't trust investment bankers as a general rule, so he's not even a consideration. To say nothing of the fact that his tenure in MA was simply an exercise in his becoming bored after a couple of years and deciding to run for president."

Substitute "racial activists" for "investment bankers" and "the Senate" for "MA", and you could be writing about Obama. Like this:

"Well, I just don't trust racial activists as a general rule, so he's not even a consideration. To say nothing of the fact that his tenure in the U.S. Senate was simply an exercise in his becoming bored after a couple of years and deciding to run for president."

BTW, the WSJ put their laudatory editorial about Hillary on their free site, so here it is: "Democrats and Iran: Hillary outsmarts her dovish competition."

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 10:20 PM

"Racial activist"? What the hell are you trying to do, play the "aggrieved white i-banker card"? Truthfully, I trust Obama's background in a way that I don't trust Romney's.

I never said I was an Obama supporter, only that his election would allow me to engage in some satisfying schadenfreude while mocking the Bushistas.

the WSJ put their laudatory editorial about Hillary on their free site

I'm well aware that while the WSJ news articles are subscription-only, the editorials and op-ed columns are free. That's a demonstration of their relative value.

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 10:58 PM

"I never said I was an Obama supporter, only that his election would allow me to engage in some satisfying schadenfreude while mocking the Bushistas."

You focus on schadenfreude and I'll vote for who I think would be the best president.

"I'm well aware that while the WSJ news articles are subscription-only, the editorials and op-ed columns are free. That's a demonstration of their relative value."

Actually, most of the editorials and columns are subscription only as well; the Hillary editorial was one they decided to put on the free side today.

Posted by Fred | September 28, 2007 11:11 PM

Fred, assuming Giuliani is the Republican nominee, where does his experience rate him as against Hillary? Obama?

Posted by Steve V | September 29, 2007 12:20 AM

I don't think you're supposed to do this on a blog comments thread, but I'd just like to thank the commenters here for a really pleasant, thought-provoking discussion. This was fun to go through.

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | September 29, 2007 12:22 AM

The conservative business elite in media, finance, oil, transport, and weapons production well knows how awful the next election season looks for their red team candidates.

The plan taking shape is to secure the Democratic party nomination for the most conservative candidate in the field.

This might explain why business leaders like Rupert Murdoch (News Corporation) and Bush Ranger John Mack (Morgan Stanley) are touting Mrs. C. for the presidency.

This might explain why Mrs. C earmarked $148.4 million in defense contracts for New York state.

"Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)." (Source, The Hill, 6/13/07)

This might explain why the president himself is saying Mrs. C. will win the nomination.

"President Bush believes that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is a “shoo-in’’ for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination, according to the author of a book about the president." (Source, Baltimore Sun, 9/24/07)

While the anti-logo, net root youth movement supporting the Obama campaign is impressive at the street level, I wonder how they can expand and overtake the powerful corporate forces backing Mrs. C. using the mass mind melding domain of television.

This might explain the CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN "roadblock" political chat show interviews of Mrs. C. last Sunday morning.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like Mrs. C. has the 2008 nomination in her hip sack.

Posted by James S. | September 29, 2007 12:40 AM

"Fred, assuming Giuliani is the Republican nominee, where does his experience rate him as against Hillary? Obama?"

He has executive experience, having been the mayor/chief executive of the largest city in the country, one larger than 80% of the states in terms of population. Neither Hillary nor Obama has any direct executive experience. I would imagine Hillary picked up a few things from 8 years of her husband's presidency though, considering she was pretty involved, for a first lady.

Posted by Fred | September 29, 2007 1:27 AM

Brandon Claycomb, glad you've enjoyed it. IMO, the comments are the best part of MY's blog. There are a few cranks, but also a handful of regular commenters who keep things interestng. Matt is smart to provide links to recent comments as well. I wonder why the other Atlantic bloggers don't do that.

Posted by Fred | September 29, 2007 2:25 AM

Romney ran a private equity fund; he wasn't an investment banker.

Posted by nbt | September 29, 2007 7:25 AM

I still remember the naifs who said "Kerry has been in politics for 35 years, there is no new dirt that can hurt him."

Swift-boating obviously occurs after there is a nominee.

The right-wing is salivating over a Hillary candidacy, which they will destroy in the summer of 2008, and not a moment before.

Posted by David | September 29, 2007 9:08 AM

Am very appreciative of the comments on this subject: Sen Obama. Also wonderful to see youth at his rally. I hope they go out to vote (and make sure they are on the list). That nags at me. Will the youth turn out when it counts.

I have another worry: after reading the Jena 6 case and the "Jesus helped us" District Attorney I wonder what Sen Obama will face in the election. Racism is alive and well here, sad to say, and bigotry is not far behind. The Senator will need real strength to cope with the stuff that will be thrown at him. Let us see how mature America is.

Posted by Alan | September 29, 2007 9:14 AM

When this this cult-of-"executive experience" come up when choosing a president? I suspect it was somewhere along the Eisenhower administration, when, for the first time, a chief of staff was used to coordinate his cabinet.

The only post-war presidency which, I think, has run up against the shoals for lack of "executive experience" has been GW Bush, as the Governor's office in Texas was a mostly ceremonial position. Bush came to office with no understanding of how to implement policies and react to changing circumstances, believing that the presidency would be a good opportunity to pass tax cuts and go bicycling. At the same time "executive experience" was supposed to be Bush's selling point, that made him more "experienced" than Gore.

Personally, I think it's a red herring raised whenever someone has a partisan interest in the outcome, and the "executive experience" card is played because they think it's a compelling argument on their side. Since the last time it was used to any large degree was back in '00, I have to dismiss it as disingenuous BS.

(and, for the record, Giuliani was rather abusive of the executive position he held with respect to corruption, firing of competent appointees, and lack of transparency, so I'm not sure that pointing out that he has "executive experience" is really valuable.)

Posted by Tyro | September 29, 2007 11:00 AM

A "racial activist"? HA! What's that? Please tell me he was trying to convince people to become black. That would be so awesome.

Posted by P | September 29, 2007 11:41 AM

How much government experience (at any level, whether or not "executive") did JFK have when he was elected president?

Posted by Steve V | September 29, 2007 2:32 PM

The sad thing is that in recent times the Democratic nominee has always been a politician who is likely to lose in the general election, or if he happens to win will pretty much govern like a Republican. I'm not sure why this is so.

Posted by Ed | September 29, 2007 3:51 PM

"There's got to be some significance to that."

Yeah.

There's a sucker born every minute.

Some of them become "pundits".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 29, 2007 6:04 PM