The Difference

I'd considered writing one of these "meta" posts about the Obama campaign, where it's going, etc., etc. offering my random advice, etc., etc. but then I realized I hate that stuff. Instead, here's an observation: It seems that most people don't perceive a meaningful difference between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy. It also seems that one important exception to that is a chorus of "centrist" hawks frequently derided in the blogosphere as Very Serious People.

We've got Sebastian Mallaby slamming "Bush haters" for not wanting a war with Iran and praising Clinton as the "foreign policy grownup." You've got Michael O'Hanlon. You've got the Post editorial board slamming Obama on Iran. Things like that. These plugged-in hawkish elites don't find Clinton threatening, and do find Obama threatening. Conversely, Obama's foreign policy team is largely drawn from the ranks of people who were marginalized by the hawks back during the 2002-2004 period. The Obama campaign hasn't done a great job of explaining exactly what the cash value of this difference is, and personally I think it's hard to know for sure what it is, but I'm pretty sure it's something and given the amount of time the progressive blogosphere spends slamming the O'Hanlons and Hiatt's of the world I'm surprised that people seem inclined to put such little weight on it. So, yes, like Josh I wish Obama would articulate this more prominently but for whatever it's worth it seems to me that the difference is there and important whether or not Obama's campaign articulates it clearly.

Comments

I hate to agree with the Washington Post but I suspect that if Obama were to clearly articulate his position on Iran you would find it much less appealing. As with Social Security Obama likes to draw distinctions where there are none, and he does so in a manner that damages his position.

Posted by tib | October 30, 2007 8:45 AM

I couldn't imagine voting Clinton in the primary, but her winning the Charles Krauthammer endorsement a week or so ago, really clarified that.

Posted by witless chum | October 30, 2007 9:08 AM

Here's something I'm surprised has not been noticed so far. Obama gets criticized for missing the vote on the Kyle-Lieberman Iran vote but if he turned up Clinton would simply have voted the same way he did as she has on other votes. The only way he could flush her out was to skip the vote, thus denying her the knowledge of his stance, and then send a note saying how he would have voted after the fact. Now, if that's true, you can criticize Obama for playing politics, but shouldn't we also criticize Clinton for having no convictions. All in all, a very smart play by team obama.

Posted by pt | October 30, 2007 9:30 AM

There is a difference between the 2 on Iraq and Iran, but it's nowhere near the gulf that exists between either of them and Bush, the GOP candidates, and Lieberman. So I guess Clinton has successfully managed to pull off triangulation on her foreign policy views. Also I expect the politics of a Clinton administration would inexorably push her towards Iraq withdrawal since she wouldn't want to have a huge American presence in Iraq as an issue that could be used against her in 2012.

Posted by Ron | October 30, 2007 9:41 AM

"I'd considered writing one of these "meta" posts about the Obama campaign, where it's going, etc., etc. offering my random advice, etc., etc."

Well, I think I finally understand the root of Matthew's obtuseness about politics.

He considers the entire enterprise of politics to be "meta".

Weirdest. Classification. Ever.

So if I'm getting the mindset correct, this means that policy is real, and politics is just a navel-gazing discussion of policy. Odd.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 10:08 AM

OK. I just read the Crowley piece that you lifted "meta" from.

He's using "meta" in an ever weirder manner. Crowley writes:

But beyond that substantive question is a meta question about the politics of Social Security.

I'm at a loss to interpret the word "meta" there. How is that sentence any different than simply omitting the word:

But beyond that substantive question is a question about the politics of Social Security.

Crowley seems to share Matthew's weird mindset of politics being "navel-gazing talk about policy". But while Matthew makes the more sensible decision of using "meta" to replace the word "political", Crowley is adding "meta" nonsensically.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 10:22 AM

Matt used the word "articulates" about a black man's campaign.

Posted by aleks | October 30, 2007 2:04 PM