Barack-as-Cudgel

I don't at all adhere to the school of thought that says "if Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks like Barack Obama, he must be evil." That said, I do think it's clear reading things like this doozy from Brooks today that one important driving force behind the sophisticated right's praise of Obama is a simple belief that he'll probably lose in the end. Then, when Clinton is nominated, having praised Obama to the skies they can lament that once again -- sigh -- the Democratic Party has let them down and they have no choice but to vote for the Republicans. The effort here is to somehow bracket the Bush years as just some kind of goofy one-off that we can forget about and remember that the real issue -- as it so often seems to be here in Washington -- is Bill Clinton's sex life. Or something.

It's all pretty inane. I've developed an increasingly strong preference for Obama in this race, but there's no gaping substantive void between them policywise. Certainly, I don't think I can think of any respect in which an Obama administration would more closely resemble a McCain administration than it would a Clinton administration. Meanwhile, McCain, despite some admirable qualities, shares Bush's lunatic conception of America's role in the world, declined to endorse any climate change measures that might actually solve the problem, and has pledged fealty to Bush's irresponsible tax policy in a way that makes it impossible for him to do much of anything innovative on the domestic front. There's a big, clear choice facing the country between the party of war, tax cuts, and the destruction of the planet and the other party -- the notion that the big story is the fortunes of the Clinton family is preposterous.

Comments

Wow. Two paragraphs and you nailed it. This may be the most underrated blog in the blogosphere. You're the reason I don't drink, Matthew, at work at 9 a.m. anyway.

Posted by Jen | January 29, 2008 9:20 AM

The effort here is to somehow bracket the Bush years as just some kind of goofy one-off that we can forget about and remember that the real issue

There's some irony here with Sully's post this morning, in which he states that any conservative who hasn't railed against various aspects of the Bush years has no ground to stand on in arguing against Obama's liberalism. In fairness, do you really believe Andrew's pretending the Bush years should be forgotten anytime soon?

What you miss I think is that some of these folks see in Obama a chance to defeat the Clintons. That's not quite the same thing as believing he'll probably lose in the end.

Posted by Jake | January 29, 2008 9:24 AM

Given that Teddy is a right-wing bete noir, I'm betting that Kennedy's endorsement is going to make some of the the wingers reconsider their admiration for Obama.

Posted by MattF | January 29, 2008 9:25 AM

"Then, when Clinton is nominated, having praised Obama to the skies they can lament that once again -- sigh -- the Democratic Party has let them down and they have no choice but to vote for the Republicans."

Well, I agree with them there. The difference may be that I actually like Obama and see him capable of doing things that the Clintons won't be able to do. Given the rightward swing the Clintons made in the 1990s, a Clinton administration will end up looking like a McCain administration anyway. I'd just as soon have McCain.

Posted by Rid | January 29, 2008 9:25 AM

Very good post.

There's a big, clear choice facing the country between the party of war, tax cuts, and the destruction of the planet and the other party

That cannot be stated enough.

If Clinton is the nominee, the media's treatment of her will resemble Rita Skeeter's profiles of Harry Potter. We'll just have to hope that they refer to policy 1/10 as often as they mention Bill Clinton's wang.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 29, 2008 9:28 AM

Amen, brother. I've long argued that the litmus test for whether or not Obama can win the general is if folks like Brooks and Sullivan explictly state that they'd vote for Obama over McCain . . . and I wouldn't bet on that one to happen, ever.

I can just imagine Sullivan's post

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 29, 2008 9:30 AM

Sullivan seems like he would definitely vote for Obama over McCain in the general. Brooks, no way.

Posted by John | January 29, 2008 9:33 AM

I could not agree more. If it looks like HRC keeps up her lead for Super Tuesday, the right will keep piling on praise for Obama.

To some degree, I remember a lot of liberals doing that with McCain the closer Bush got to clinching the nomination in 2000.

And McCain was and Obama is more electable in November than their primary opponents.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 29, 2008 9:34 AM

I think you miss something else, however. I support Obama and I've pretty much decided that I can't pull the lever for Clinton because that's how angry I've personally beome the past couple of weeks. And I'm not even angry at Hillary, I went with a friend to a fundraiser for her and she's actually charming. It's all about Bill for me, which is wrong, but I can't help but feel I'm getting two for one. And I don't like that man any more.

Brooks is tapping into that feeling that IS out there among good democrats and democratic leaning independents. Now, there is a long way to the nomination. But if this fight goes beyond Feb. 5th people are going to get more invested. And more disappointed. And given that, this line from Brooks that it's the CLINTONS here and its not the issues.

That is going to resonate.

Particularly if you see that Clinton voted for the war. If you don't trust her when she says she'll be out of Iraq. If you don't trust her that she's not a hawk.

Because she's played one on tv and in the news until 2005 and into '06.

It's more complicated than you lay out. Because you seem to fundamentally believe Clinton when she says she'll leave Iraq. And given her history and her bellicosity on Iran and the Clinton habit of reneging on promises or redefining agreements in midcourse (don't ask don't tell, Micigan and Florida spring to mind) that in and of itself is an artical of faith I don't hold.

There are a lot of good democrats and democratic independents who don't trust the Clintons. (And it is the Clintons now, not Hillary.) There are a lot of people who DO see them as Bush-Cheney lite.

I think those people might actually stay home in Novemeber. I think a lot of people would.

It might not be great and the Clintons have a habit of pulling things off, but its not something I would discount.

Look how many people went out in snow storm to vote uncommitted against her in Michigan.

Posted by Rhoda | January 29, 2008 9:35 AM

Matthew's denouncement of conservatives who support Barack is weak and ineffective. They don't support Barack because they think he'd lose the nomination. They support Barack because they are sick and tired of the racial divisiveness caused by the racist Billary. Read William Kristol's article where he writes Billary "has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily." Conservatives are sick and tired of Billary's racism as the rest of us.

Barack supporters should have no problems standing side by side with conservatives in supporting Obama and despising the racist Billary. Hilbots are being racist in their attempt to persuade us otherwise.

Posted by I Love Barack | January 29, 2008 9:37 AM

I've developed an increasingly strong preference for Obama in this race, but there's no gaping substantive void between them policywise.

Excepting, of course, your earlier post today pointing out that Clinton applauded the "surge/terrorists" line in the SOTU last night while Obama remained firmly seated.

With all due respect Matt, that's a fucking chasm.

Posted by Jake | January 29, 2008 9:40 AM

Matt,

I think this is fundamentally wrong. What you can see in David Brooks, Bill Kristol, William Bennet, G.F. Will is something different--admiration. (Brooks sounds almost in love.) There is something profound in the American civic religion that Obama is appealing to, and these people simply feel it. They know they don't agree with him. That isn't the point.

Posted by Matt | January 29, 2008 9:42 AM

Jake pretty much nailed it. This isn't about Bush. This is about the right's hatred of the Clintons. They know that this election is lost, and whomever wins the Democratic primary will win the general. Just look at every poll that shows Obama (who is still sort of a nobody to the general electorate) beats Guliani and McCain, two media darlings. Or better yet, look at their war chest. The leading Republicans can barely make their way to the next primary, that is how little funding they have and how little the party believes in their own or this election. For the conservatives, it is all about keeping the Clintons out of the White House.

Posted by freddiemac | January 29, 2008 9:43 AM

What Jake just said. With or without all due respect.

Posted by James Gary | January 29, 2008 9:44 AM

Please, Democrats and progressives - don't get caught up in the personality thing.

What really matters is simple: What party will control the White House and thus control thousands of crucial appointments in the executive and judicial branches.

This is far more important than whether you "like" a candidate or his or her spouse.

The Republican appointees have been doing untold damage for almost eight years now. It's essential that we stop the bleeding by electing a Democrat, no matter who it is.

Republicans understand this. We need to as well.

Posted by Virginia | January 29, 2008 9:45 AM

And I don't like that man any more.

With respect, Rhoda, I ask that you get over that feeling.

You are right that Hillary is more instinctively pro-war than Obama. But she's sure a hell of a lot more likely to resolve the Iraq occupation-- not to mention relations with Iran-- in a mature, non-Rapture-based fashion than is any Republican.

Plus, there are domestic issues. On the deficit, on global warming, on health care, on Social Security, she is infinitely preferable to anyone from the GOP.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 29, 2008 9:45 AM

I've been wrestling with whether I believe conservative love for Obama is genuine or part of some evil plot. I've come to the conclusion that conservatives love the IDEA of Obama. He appeals to their sense that America is a place where anyone can rise with hard work, yadda yadda yadda. But when the chips are down, they'll have no problem breaking out the knives. Sully might still support him, but he voted for Kerry, so he doesn't count. Similarly, all of us Democrats bemoaning the evil Clintons and threatening to vote for McCain in Nov. will rally behind her if she wins the nomination. Just like Obama to conservatives, McCain seems appealing when it doesn't matter. Faced with a choice of even more wars, permanent tax cuts for the rich and more Alitos, he'll become just another Republican. Just show the photo of him hugging Bush over and over. We'll fall in line.

Posted by NHCt | January 29, 2008 9:48 AM

Matt, you are missing the bigger story here: People are just tired of the Bill and Hillary show. I think Bill was an OK president overall, and in comparison to W he was virtually Abraham Lincoln. But I've had enough of the Clinton psychodrama. Haven't you? And don't you think that some conservatives might in good faith think the same thing?

Posted by jbd | January 29, 2008 9:48 AM

Matt,

Fine post.

Posted by Eric Martin | January 29, 2008 9:49 AM

I don't hate Obama because Andrew likes him, in fact, I will support him on Super Tuesday. But I do think Andrew is irrational because he hates Hillary in the same way Republicans hate gays.

Posted by bajsa | January 29, 2008 9:49 AM

Certainly Andrew has some irrational hate for Hillary. The problem is, so do LOTS of people. That, my friends, is a real obstacle for her, even if it's not her fault.

Posted by Jake | January 29, 2008 9:54 AM

That said, I do think it's clear reading things like this doozy from Brooks today that one important driving force behind the sophisticated right's praise of Obama is a simple belief that he'll probably lose in the end.

I think this is probably pretty accurate and fair in the case of David Brooks who has as far as I know h always supported Republicans, and it would be a huge shock to everyone if he wound up supporting the Democratic party's nominee for President. But Andrew Sullivan is a different story -- after all he did support John Kerry in 2004. While it is certain that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, Sullivan will support the Republican candidate, this will be because of his genuine hatred for her, not because of an unswerving loyalty to the Republican Party.

Posted by peep | January 29, 2008 9:55 AM

Meh. Welfare reform. Defense of Marriage Act. What you get out of a Clinton presidency will depend on the political needs of the Clintons at the moment. They will be progressive if there is strong political backing for it, and if not, the progressives will be told to fuck off and to "live in the real world" or "grow up."

Fuck the Clintons and their bullshit.

Posted by Helter | January 29, 2008 9:56 AM

I support Obama because if he wins, he's got better policies, doesn't appear to be as polarizing from the get-go, and as a result Dems defeat weak Repubs in future elections.

If he loses, then McCain wins, and the Republicans are still divided and things get done. Dems defeat a depressed Repub party in future elections.

If Hillary wins, Republicans get unified and '92-'96 repeats once again, like Groundhog Day or something. I'd rather not have that. Winning mid-terms w/ McCain and his depressed party would be infinitely better than having Hillary riling the GOP base for another 20 years.

Posted by Jon | January 29, 2008 9:58 AM

Something very interesting is going on here.

Many conservatives (like myself) eventually have come to terms with the fact that liberals were right about George W. Bush. What they were saying all along turned out to be true. I voted for Bush the first time enthusiastically, and the second time reluctantly because I thought he was better than Kerry. But it wasn't until relatively recently that I had to acknowledge the obvious: Bush was as bad, all along, as my liberal friends said he was. They were right, and I was wrong.

And now many liberals are realizing what people like me understood about the Clintons throughout the 90's. They supported him, they defended him, and yet the emperor turns out to wear no clothes. The Clintons really were as bad as his opponents often made him out to be.

This is why I really do want Obama to win, even over McCain (whom I agree with far more than I do Obama). It would give both liberals and conservatives a way to get over the Clinton/Bush era. (I don't include the senior Bush in that "era" because he was in my view a decent man who was a good president for his time.)

The perniciousness and divisiveness of the Clintons and Bush/Rove must be retired once and for all. Yes, Obama is clearly a liberal, but I believe there is just something different about him which will allow him to govern with a view towards what's best for the entire country. I don't think he will govern divisively for the sake of his political career (think Clintons) or his political party (think Bush). And now that Republicans are sick of Bush and Democrats are sick of the Clintons, perhaps the country can now rally around someone who will start getting the poison out of our system.

As much as I like McCain, he is still a man of the 20th century. Obama could allow America to begin the 21st century in a renewed and restored condition.

I wish Obama the best.

Posted by yglesias-reading republican | January 29, 2008 10:03 AM

"...one important driving force behind the sophisticated right's praise of Obama is a simple belief that he'll probably lose in the end."

What's with the assumption that Obama is less electable than Hillary? She's the one candidate who engenders such loathing on the "other side," you're guaranteed a huge GOP turnout regardless of the nominee. Quite a few moderate Dems (self included) would gladly vote for a President McCain over Hillary because their policies are virtually identical, only McCain doesn't come with the hillbilly psychodrama. Do you think the converse is true? No Republican of any stripe would vote Hillary.

The temptation among establishment Dems is to vote for Hillary because she's the safe, vetted candidate - a known quality - but nominating the "safe" choice instead of an inspired one is exactly how to lose an election.

Posted by Mike LeP | January 29, 2008 10:09 AM

McCain is a republican, a rather conservative one at that. He does not have the mental framework to take America off its current plunge into ruin.

He makes a nice grumpy grampa who loves you at heart, but his ideas stink and stinky conservative republican ideas are what has screwed America up real good. America could end up with another wrong man at the top, just like with Bush. What a tragedy.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 29, 2008 10:10 AM

In these efforts to probe the conservative soul, many of you are mistaking media prominent neocons (Brooks, Kristol) for rank and file Republican/conservative sentiment. The only thing the neocons really care about is an aggressive policy in the MidEast, war with Iran, etc. -- on every other "conservative" issue, immigration, abortion, whatever, their preferences are mild or pretty liberal. Giuliani or McCain is their ideal candidate. They will back the most hawkish candidate in the general irregardless of party or other issues. McCain-Lieberman their wet dream ticket, though they probably recognize it's impractical. Is Brook's praise of Obama is "tactical". Possibly even more so than MY does, designed to bolster the weaker Dem candidate, Barack, ahem-- Hussein--, Obama in the general. One of the posters above said most Americans don't know much about him yet. That's pretty true. What do you think the Republicans will tell them about him after he's nominated?

Posted by scott | January 29, 2008 10:14 AM

Mike LeP, I think MY was saying that they think Obama will lose the NOMINATION, so conservatives are saying nice things about him now. But he probably doesn't make it as clear in his post as he could...

Posted by sweaty guy | January 29, 2008 10:17 AM

What's with the assumption that Obama is less electable than Hillary?

This tripped me up at first, too, but I think you can tell from the context that "lose in the end" means "lose the Democratic primary in the end".

This is an interesting endorsement for Obama. Sorry, I'm crap at html unless there's handy little buttons for me. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html

And MikeLeP, I appreciate your logic and especially your semi-conversion, but saying the Clintons are the flip side of the coin from Bush is revisionist history. I think Democrats feel highly conflicted about Bill Clinton. On the one hand, eight years of peace, prosperity, and high approval ratings. On the other hand, very little of the progressive agenda advanced because of the constant need to hew to the center. He had the raw intelligence, talent, and charisma, to be a great president, and he was rather less than that.

But a Democratic version of the disastrous failure that is Bush, he was assuredly not.

Posted by Jen | January 29, 2008 10:18 AM

So the liberals were right that Bush's policies of tax cuts and permanent war would ruin the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people for nothing, and the conservatives were right that Bill and Hillary have a bad marriage.

So liberals and conservatives are each a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Clearly both sides could use a dose of your home-spun humble wisdom, yglesias-reading-republican!

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | January 29, 2008 10:18 AM

So the liberals were right that Bush's policies of tax cuts and permanent war would ruin the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people for nothing, and the conservatives were right that Bill and Hillary have a bad marriage.

So liberals and conservatives are each a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Clearly both sides could use a dose of your home-spun humble wisdom, yglesias-reading-republican!

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | January 29, 2008 10:19 AM

The assumption is that Obama will lose in the end to Hillary during the primary. So all the conservative/Republican commentaters can claim "Oh, if only you had nominated Obama we could reasonably support the Democrats this year in the general election."

There are differences between Obama and Hillary on policies. But the differences between Hillary and any of the Republican candidates is a vast, huge gap. I just shake my head at anyone saing they'll support Obama or McCain in the general election, but NEVER Hillary.

Posted by Alex | January 29, 2008 10:19 AM

Hmmm. I thought it was more a way for them to use Obama's talking about crossing party lines (for progressive / liberal aims, in my view) in order to hammer the Democrats once again towards fake and crappy "bipartisanship" in favor of right wing goals.

And then once Obama were president, if he didn't pull the Lieberman act (like I don't think he would), then they can gear up to spend another term screaming in their stark raving mad fashion about how Democrats were divisive, partisan beasts intent on tearing the country apart even though all the sweet, nice, lovely, bipartisan conservatives had tried so hard to reach across the aisles, just like George Bush Jr. did.

Posted by El Cid | January 29, 2008 10:20 AM

RE: Elvis Elvisberg

With respect, Rhoda, I ask that you get over that feeling.

You are right that Hillary is more instinctively pro-war than Obama. But she's sure a hell of a lot more likely to resolve the Iraq occupation-- not to mention relations with Iran-- in a mature, non-Rapture-based fashion than is any Republican.

See, I don't believe that Elvis. I don't believe that because example number one is her clapping last night about the surge. Example number two is her vote for the Iraq war. Example number three is Kyle-Liberman. I think, obviously, HRC is a sane individual and not as crazy as Bush-Cheney.

But I know that if there is an attack she'll want to hit anyone to make sure her poll numbers don't tank. That she will not act from the strength of the USA and our best interests but in the political dynamic she inhabits.

Those are favorable to anit-war dems and anit-war isolationist sentiments in the electorate.

But that can change.

I don't trust her. I don't hate her. And I really dislike Bill and hate the affirmation it would provide him. Another win, this time against the Kennedys.

This isn't something I'm at all going to get over. If HRC gets the nomination I really hope Bloomberg gets the nomination, at least someone I could enjoy pulling the lever for other than HRC

Posted by Rhoda | January 29, 2008 10:20 AM

So the liberals were right that Bush's policies of tax cuts and permanent war would ruin the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people for nothing, and the conservatives were right that Bill and Hillary have a bad marriage.

So liberals and conservatives are each a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Clearly both sides could use a dose of your home-spun humble wisdom, yglesias-reading-republican!

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | January 29, 2008 10:20 AM

Sorry, the latter comments were directed at "yglesias-reading republican" rather than Mike.

Posted by jen | January 29, 2008 10:21 AM

Dr. VDH, first of all, you only need to post once. Of course, you're monikor makes it clear you shouldn't be taken seriously. Do you think you're clever with "Dr. Victor Davis Handjob"? How old are you, 16? You're probably in your 30's or 40's and don't have much of a life.

I was not referring to the Clintons' bad marriage, of which I care little. I was referring to their scorched earth "no quarter given" style of politics, and their self-absorption. They are doing to Obama what they did to their political enemies in the 90's.

If you aren't one of those liberals waking up to the Clinton's negatitve qualities, that's fine. But many are. Stop posting the same comment several times, and get out more. Meet real people. You'll find the sentiment that conservatives were right about the Clintons among many liberals, just like you'll find the vice-versa about Bush among many conservatives.

Posted by yglesias-reading republican | January 29, 2008 10:28 AM

"The Clintons really were as bad as his opponents often made him out to be."

No, they weren't. 99.9% of what the right accused the Clintons of was bunk and the Democrats know it. The right wasn't right about Clinton as the left has been right about Bush. Conservatives like you didn't understand the Clintons. They just made shit up so they could engineer a soft coup against them.

If a lot of Democrats are unhappy with the Clintons, it has nothing to do with the opinion (if that's the term) conservatives like you had of them but because of their policies, which they judge too conservative. And it's pretty clear to me that if right-wingers now dislike Bush, it's not because they think Democrats were right, but mostly because he isn't being mean enough to the brown people and is still spending too much money of stuff other than random wars.

Right wing pundits are praising Obama probably for the reasons stated by Matt Yglesias and because it makes them look good (see how open-minded and bi-partisan they are; see how the current political unpleasantness is all the Clintons' faults); the fact that they know he has no chance to win the general doesn't hurt either.

Posted by LC | January 29, 2008 10:31 AM

Oh yes--that gush about the Democrat so you can tear him down later. Right, Republicans do that all the time, and it's so successful, right? Um no, they don't. They aren't very subtle people. When they don't like someone they don't like them and they say so.

We're not so different. I'm all for Mittmentum, but I don't go around trying to praise Mitt to try to prove it--I'd be pretty clear that my motives are cynical. It would be too difficult to do otherwise. I'm not good enough an actress. I don't think Brooks (and some of the other worthies mentioned) are good enough actors or actresses to pull that off either. Sullivan and Brooks seem like they want to marry Obama. Michelle, watch out...

People are starting to remind me of teenagers who are feeling a little unsophisticated, so they try to show how sophisticated they are by offering super cynical takes on everything, even when those takes simply aren't true.

When push comes to shove, most of the Obama admiring Republicans will still vote for Mitt or McCain. I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise. But a few will vote for him--and even if they don't vote for him, they'll respect him and his presidency a lot more than they did a Clinton presidency. Thus the liberal agenda will have a better chance of going forward. You all make it sound like that's a bad thing...

Posted by JMS | January 29, 2008 10:33 AM

Good post, and NHCt also nails it. I voted for Obama and while I'm impressed by the conservative love he's getting, I don't think it will last should he wind up with the nomination and gain the WH. They love the idea of Obama, as NHCt said, and they love to use him as a club to beat up on the Clintons.

I have my problems with both Bill and Hillary, both on process and policy grounds, many of which Matt has written about on this blog, but I will definitely support her should she get the nomination.

Liberals and moderates threatening to sit it out if the nomination goes to Hillary, I have a question for you: who would you rather see on the Supreme Court, another John Roberts, who McCain says he sees as his model for a SC justice, or another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephan Breyer?

This shit matters!

Posted by Jeff S. | January 29, 2008 10:37 AM

... one important driving force behind the sophisticated right's praise of Obama is a simple belief that he'll probably lose in the end. Then, when Clinton is nominated, having praised Obama to the skies they can lament that once again -- sigh -- the Democratic Party has let them down and they have no choice but to vote for the Republicans.

Don't forget, also, that when Obama loses to Clinton (as, I agree, these conservative pundits expect) they will feel entitled to engage in that favorite conservative parlor trick -- claiming that Democrats (who, after all, rejected a black candidate) are racists while Republicans (who liked Obama) are not. There are few things they enjoy more.

Obama lets conservatives pose as enlightened on race. It's a safe pose because they think he'll lose.

As for Clinton: After defending her quite a bit on these threads, I can't do it any more. I still prefer Edwards with some reluctance, but to have a chance of helping to defeat Clinton I'll probably vote Obama on Super Tuesday unless Edwards shows some serious movement in the polls.

But let's not be idiots, people. As bad as Clinton is, any Republican *including* McCain will be much worse. Do you really want Sam Brownback picking the next three Supreme Court Justices? Do you really want McCain's VP -- sure to be a hard-right winger -- a heartbeat away?

Posted by Ryan | January 29, 2008 10:37 AM

"but there's no gaping substantive void between them policywise."

True, but there is another big difference that people like Brooks have spotted. Given the way he has presented his campaign, President Obama will have to work with and compromise with the Republicans members in Congress. How can he spend a campaign talking about unity and change and then go back to polarization? The Republicans, especially in the Senate, will have someone they can work with in an Obama administration.

That's how Obama is similar to McCain. President McCain would do the same thing--he'd work with the Democrats. Both he and Obama work with the other party as a matter of principle (although for different reasons). That's what Brooks is seeing.

Posted by Keith | January 29, 2008 10:39 AM

Jen, thanks for the clarification. I kind of thought so.

I will agree with you, Bush has been a disaster of a president. I will acknowledge that Clinton was a good president who could have been a great one (despite my disagreement with his politics). I'm happy for the country to be well-managed regardless of ideology, and Clinton was an effective administrator.

What I am referring to is the take-no-prisoners style of campaigning, and the "War Room" tactics of demonizing your political enemies. I think Bush, for example, had the opportunity to be a great president right after 9/11, if he had reached out to his political opponents and governed in a consensus fashion. I really did believe that he was a "uniter not a divider," because that was his record in Texas, which I knew a lot about. I didn't count on Rove or Cheney or Sauron having as much influence over Bush as they must have had. So I was an idiot. Many people, liberal friends of mine, warned me that Bush was an empty suit, that he was a right-winger not a moderate conservative like his father (despite his "compassionate conservative" rhetoric), that he would easily be manipulated, etc. I'm not so much talking policy, i.e. whether the tax cuts were a good idea (at the time, with a possible recession on the horizon, I don't think they were a mistake). I'm talking about political style, such as the way he used security issues to trash the Democrats and accuse them of treason.

I remember the 90's. I remember thinking Clinton was a very slick, manipulative, self-absorbed person. I didn't care about his marriage (I would of course want his marriage to be a happy one), but I didn't like the way he seemed to be lying about women like Flowers and Jones. He used people and then discarded them. Is that as bad as starting an unnecessary war? Of course not. But is it a character flaw that has damaging consequences? Yes, it can be, and it was in his case. I think he is a liar, I think he does whatever it takes for him to win, I think his ego is unchecked, and I think he will destroy people who get in his way. Hillary, to my observation, is no different.

Who cares what I think? I'm just saying that I know liberals personally (and I also read many political blogs so I see this now quite frequently) who are saying specifically that their conservative friends (including me!) were right about the Clintons all along. That is, the Clintons are not heroic people, they're very narrow and petty, and they are political animals who are in it for themselves.

Okay? I don't mean to compare their presidencies. I'm just saying that the conservatives feel about Bush the way the liberals do about the Clintons, including "what their enemies were saying was actually true all along."

Posted by yglesias-reading republican | January 29, 2008 10:40 AM

I guess Matt thinks we Economist-style, center-right types should be called out as the enemy.

I think the right formulation is this: there's a realignment happening at the moment, and people like me - socially tolerant, economically conservative "moderates" are looking for a home. If you're a progressive you'd have to be insane for not taking advantage of Republican disarray to divide and conquer.

I think that free trade is a powerful civilizing and humanitarian force, and the same goes for capitalism. You might disagree.

But we agree that the supreme court shouldn't be stacked with Christian wackos. We probably agree on gay marriage, and I will grant you that something's terribly wrong with our healthcare system, so why not try something new? Oh, and one's senate career should be judged by only one vote - the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

Moreover some of us know a real leader when we see one, that's exciting in itself when you look back at 20 years of mediocrity.

So I hope I will be believed when I say that I REALLY REALLY want Obama as my president. Do liberals want to build a coalition and win, or pat themselves on the back for keeping the movement "pure", and lose?

Posted by Steve C | January 29, 2008 10:40 AM

I was referring to their scorched earth "no quarter given" style of politics

You make a lot of sense, yglesias-reading republican, but the above bit is complete crap. Bill Clinton ran to the middle on *every* issue when he was President. The Clintons are centrists and they are risk-averse. They gave "quarter" *all the time* on issues -- that's the reason so many progressives felt betrayed by them. Give me one example of scorched-earth politics they directed at Republicans. They did not deliberately "govern divisively" as you claim in an earlier comment. All of that they experienced *from the receiving end* despite their efforts to fashion a mushy middle. The right smelled weakness and was not in the least bit interested.

Seriously, were you even alive in the 1990s or did you just read about it in some Bill Kristol column?

Posted by Ryan | January 29, 2008 10:48 AM

"It's all pretty inane"

It is also increasingly desperate from republicans who sense the end of a 30 year run of power in American politics. Wingnut press and blogs are fixated on any opportunity to twist and turn dem political workings to some absurd universal dark truths. Whether it's "liberal Fascism" "the evil Clintons""dems are more racist or more corrupt or whatever.

They are utterly bankrupt morally and intellectually and their deals with the devil i.e. "southern strategy", are haunting their existence. The only thing left to do is try and dump the toxic baggage onto dems.

Posted by nightjar | January 29, 2008 10:49 AM

Assuming that columnists aren't 100% evil and may even have a spark of conscience, one could give Brooks the benefit of the doubt, since he originally encouraged Obama to run and has seemed genuine in his praise of Obama (on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, etc). Assuming otherwise, Brooks would be unwise to promote Obama, because Obama is the only candidate who could beat any Republican, including McCain, in November. Unlike Obama, Hillary would lose to McCain because of 1.)her high unfavorability (note maximal contrast to Barack's high lovability) and 2.) her hawkishness which offers minimal contrast to McCain's hawkishness. Hillary wants our troops out of Iraq so she can attack Iran. Obama is the only Democrat who has a clean history of opposing unnecessary wars, and if he can overcome the dirty-tricks campaign against him, including slanderous emails portraying him as an Islamofascist, he will win both the nomination and the general electon.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | January 29, 2008 10:51 AM

lc: "the fact that they know he has no chance to win the general doesn't hurt either"

"Fact", you say? Are you nuts? If Obama gets past Hillary, he has an excellent chance of winning the general. Hell, John Kerry, Walter Mondale or even an undead Joe Stalin would have an excellent chance of winning the general this year as the Dem nominee.

Hillary even has an excellent chance, dispite her HUGE, HUGE negative polling numbers and the HUGE, HUGE Republican turnout that would result from her nomination, notwithstanding the (atypical) likely Republican candidate. I guess the Clinton supporters won't believe the depth of the negative feelings unless the poll were recast as "pick your least favorite candidate for president" and the options were HRC, Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore. I promise, HRC would rack up significant numbers.

Posted by zaleriana | January 29, 2008 10:52 AM

Narrowness! Pettyness! Self absorption! Ego! Political animals!

The horror!

Conservatives were right about the Clintons! Vote McCain! Vote McCain!

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | January 29, 2008 10:53 AM

'Assuming that columnists aren't 100% evil and may even have a spark of conscience, one could give Brooks the benefit of the doubt'

quoted because it's funny.

'Hillary wants our troops out of Iraq so she can attack Iran. Obama is the only Democrat who has a clean history of opposing unnecessary wars'

Good Lord.

S.970 Obama supporters.

S.970.

Posted by willyjsimmons | January 29, 2008 11:02 AM

"Sullivan seems like he would definitely vote for Obama over McCain in the general. Brooks, no way."

Sullivan isn't a U.S. citizen, so his voting preferences remain academic.

Posted by phil | January 29, 2008 11:11 AM

I find this post excessively cynical and unfair.

I'm a Republican who enthusiastically supports Obama. I most definitely would vote for him over any GOP candidate, even McCain.

The same cannot be said for Hillary. I'm not a Hillary-hater, per se, but it's very obvious that the tone in Washington will not change one millimeter if she's elected, and that will lead to more gridlock and partisan warfare. I have no illusions that Obama can change that swampland overnight, but he will definitely start out on Day One with more than 51% support.

What mystifies me is why the Democrats would want to strap themselves to a candidate whose primary credentials are her association with a long gone administration when they can have a guy who is a real change agent.

Posted by Howard B. | January 29, 2008 11:13 AM

This is nonsense. The reason that the right likes Obama so much is simple: they HATE Hillary. They want her gone. The quicker the better, because any chance of a Hillary administration is their worst nightmare. I don't think anyone believes Hillary will be harder to beat - the GOP relishes Hillary because their base will come out in mass, and independents don't care for her.

That said, they'd rather take their chances losing to Obama than to Hillary because I think most GOPers accept that winning the Presidency is an uphill battle. And they'd rather have a president who at least says he will work with everyone than have to deal with Hillary for 4 years.

Posted by Joe | January 29, 2008 11:13 AM

"[T]here's no gaping substantive void between them policywise." How true. And therefore in making a choice Democrats must look to other issues, such as leadership and character. In this regards, as Republicans have recognized, Obama shines and is head and shoulders above the Clintons. Although these Republicans probably will not vote for the liberal Obama, they certainly will not vote for the liberal and character-flawed Clintons. That's the point.

Posted by Keith | January 29, 2008 11:15 AM

Well, I think you're right that the Clintons run a very take-no-prisoners style of campaigning, and somehow a sense of entitlement and condescension permeate the campaign and annoy me. If Hillary were the best candidate on offer, we would probably gripe about it some, but since there seems to be a quite better alternative, the distinction is put into even clearer focus.

But as to "giving quarter": Bill Clinton hewed to the middle all the time. The "Third Way". He "gave quarter" all the time. He co-opted Republican ideas that had popular support, like welfare reform. The most progressive thing he did in eight years was probably Family and Medical leave. He was as centrist as they come, and quite possibly that contributed to his appeal to the general public; but it left more progressive Dems disappointed.

And I just can't let this go, either: I really did believe that he was a "uniter not a divider," because that was his record in Texas, which I knew a lot about.

Here's the thing. A Democrat in Texas is still in Texas. It's not like they're voting in Ted Kennedy over there, or even anyone who is concerned about global warming. If you're a Republican who can't collaborate with a Texas Democrat, you can't collaborate with much of anybody. And, voila, it did not carry over to, well, to anybody.

I want to encourage everyone, though, that if you should meet a conservative who sounds like they have a lick of sense and actually employs empirical thinking, don't run them out on a rail for a few things you disagree with. The fate of the Magical Unity Pony depends on this.

Posted by Jen | January 29, 2008 11:17 AM

"one important driving force behind the sophisticated right's praise of Obama is a simple belief that he'll probably lose in the end"

I agree if we re-define 'in the end' as 'in November'.

I think the 'sophisticated' right likes the idea of Obama getting the nomination the same way I like the idea of Huckabee getting the nomination (it's called getting the other side to do your work for you).

They think he'll be a lot more vulnerable to swift-boating and weaker in debates than Clinton (who's as invulnerable to swift-boating as any candidate can be and who's consistently outperformed Obama in debates).

Posted by michael farris | January 29, 2008 11:19 AM

Good post. I would also suggest that some of the red state senators who have been endorsing Obama are motivated by a similar calculus. Not that they would support McCain over Clinton, just that they think they can get out of line of fire directed at the Democratic Nominee by endorsing the one they think will loose the primary.

(Hoping I/they are wrong.)

jburnout

Posted by jburnout | January 29, 2008 11:23 AM

Personally, I think Sully pulls for Obama so he can cry "see, I'm not racist!" the next time he starts blabbering about how blacks are genetically inferior.

Posted by Cain | January 29, 2008 11:25 AM

I think George Will, Brooks. Sully, K-Lo, etc genuinely like Obama. Haven't you checked out his economic team?

Posted by magisterludi | January 29, 2008 11:25 AM

I have to go. Being a conservative, I have a real job and can't spend all my time on the Web. :-)

Just kidding, people. Get a grip.

Jen, thanks for your comments, and your conciliatory tone.

I fully agree with Howard B., by the way. (And no, I'm not him.)

I find many of the commenters here to be a bit too wrapped up in their liberal/progressive world. That's something I like about Obama. While he might share the same policy goals, he doesn't condescend to someone so stupid and shallow as me who actually remains a conservative. He treats me like a real person with legitimate reasons for coming to my conclusions. (He did the same to his conservative and "law and economics" colleagues at the U. of Chicago Law School.) Frankly, liberals and Democrats could learn a lot from Obama's style. That includes many of the commenters here.

Posted by yglesias-reading republican | January 29, 2008 11:26 AM

I like your tone, perspective, and proper hyphenation, yglesias-reading republican, and I hope you stick around.

Posted by the moo cow | January 29, 2008 11:41 AM

I disagree about there being something wrong with me if I would vote for McCain if Obama does not win the election. If I wanted to live in a parliamentary democracy, where the leader of the majority party in the legislature is the leader of the nation, I have several to choose from. Some of our best policies have emerged from divided government.

Shock, gasp, horror, but republicans are better on some issues than democrats. I call myself a democrat because on issues where there is a huge difference between the parties I agree with democrats about 60% of the time. The biggest issue the next president will face is probably not something we have thought of yet (in 2000, was anyone thinking about a large scale terrorist attack?). And when it comes to "who do I trust to deal with a trick issue that is not in the public consciousness," I trust Obama more than Hillary, and McCain more than Hillary. But I'm a pro-life democrat so what do I know.

Posted by Blue Moon | January 29, 2008 11:53 AM

"Frankly, liberals and Democrats could learn a lot from Obama's style. That includes many of the commenters here."

why don't you write a bunch of emails to limbaugh, hannity, boortz, o'reilly, malkin, coulter, beck, steyn et. al. and encourage them to learn something from obama's style?

i say screw obama's style. the reason the "tone" sucks in this country is because of the right wing media machine, not bill or hillary clinton. if anybody wants real progressive change in this country, go out and work for a solid democratic majority in congress and hillary clinton for president.

Posted by english teacher | January 29, 2008 11:59 AM

english teacher:

Working for a solid democratic majority and Hillary Clinton for president are mutually exclusive. You have to pick one, just ask Sebelius, Napolitano, and McCaskill.

Posted by Blue Moon | January 29, 2008 12:05 PM

blue moon:

THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION was most definitely thinking about a terrorist attack. regrettably, the republican congress, bush administration, and the media were thinking about clinton getting his pole stroked.

Posted by english teacher | January 29, 2008 12:07 PM

english teacher:

What are you talking about? In the 2000 prez campaign, NO ONE was talking about terrorism, not Al, not W, not Nader.

Posted by Blue Moon | January 29, 2008 12:10 PM

Sorry, English Teacher, but if you think that the Clintons haven't also contributed to the toxic atmosphere in Washington, you're just not paying attention. Yes, the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter industrial complex bears a disproportionate chunk of the responsibility, but the Clintons have been pretty bare-knuckled and nasty, too. The idea of sending them back to Washington depresses the hell out of me, as if our country is so bereft of good people that we have to keep going back to the same tainted well again and again.

Posted by Howard B. | January 29, 2008 12:13 PM

clinton was talking about it. you know, the actual president.

Posted by english teacher | January 29, 2008 12:17 PM

Yeah, the Republicans started these attacks. But Hillary and Bill reveled in it. (See, e.g., "the fun part.") She has a ceiling of what 52% in a general election, and is the only person capable of uniting the Republican party. She's polarizing not just because of what she represents -- although I dispute she's really a feminist -- but because she routinely tells people they're stupid, evil, etc. And I include in this her condescending fear-mongering in the run up to the Iraq war, and in the notion that a 46 year old man with more legislative experience than she has is "naive."

I hold no brief for Sully or Brooks, but a liberal leader who isn't totally hated is a good thing. Look, calling out the "vast right wing conspiracy," even if true, wasn't well designed to make friends nd influence people. It's a question of short term versus long term gain. Obama's got what it takes to build a movement that oulasts his term in office.

If she gets the nomination, I'll have to put forth some effort on behalf of congressional candidates, since we'll need a strong democratic majority to fight the triangulation!

Posted by David B. | January 29, 2008 12:19 PM

And now that Republicans are sick of Bush and Democrats are sick of the Clintons, perhaps the country can now rally around someone who will start getting the poison out of our system.

Very incisive and intelligent comment from yglesias-reading republican. Absolutely yes, people are sick of the Bushes and the Clintons. I certainly am; I'm a dem who never *considered* supporting HRC unless I had to in the general. But what people are really sick of is deliberate polarization for its own sake, and the GOP bears most of the responsibility for that. You can give me plenty of examples of 'you guys do it too', but the difference is that the GOP of the 90s and beyond used polarization as a basic strategy - not true ideological polarization so much as just all-out warfare, win at all costs. Say anything, do anything, to win. Compare Romney and HRC. You may not like her, but Romney is *ridiculously* unprincipled, and there's a reason someone like him can be a frontrunner for the GOP nomination. I'd say McCain has been ridiculously unprincipled too, and that may say even more about how the party is now. I think the Clintons are ruthless and egocentric, and that the political atmosphere created by the GOP in the 90s either give them an excuse to be that way, or even caused it to some extent. The symbiosis with the Clintons and the GOP is just so tangled and deep. Yes, we are sick of it.

Victor Davis Handjob does have a point, however unkindly made, but it may be immaterial to what YRR was saying. The Clintons are not my favorite people. I do find them mediocre, but I'd also say that they both demonstrate more character than, say, the current president, or Gingrich, or other exponents of the GOP insurgency. What YRR decries in the Clintons was much worse in the GOP insurgency. It's a little too easy to just blame Bush and suggest we all 'move on'. The problem with the GOP hardly begins and ends with Bush.

But be that as it may, we are where we are, as YRR correctly points out. Dems defended Clinton in the 90s because he was a reasonably competent Eisenhower-Democrat president being hounded like a fox, but even more than that because there was no alternative at the time. The GOP was explicitly trying to destroy, not just defeat, the Democratic party. We have a choice other than a Clinton now, thank god, and are in a much stronger position overall.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 29, 2008 12:24 PM

English teacher:

My point is that when choosing a president, we have to choose someone who can react to a situation that the electorate is not really considering a pressing issues. In 2000, the economy was still humming along, and we were debate social security and social issues. I'm not attacking Clinton, I'm saying that the candidates for president were not talking about terrorism, and yet one year later that was the no. 1 issue.

Posted by Blue Moon | January 29, 2008 12:26 PM

Everyone should read the 9:37 comment by I Love Barack. It perfectly illustrates why many of us detest the Obama movement. It makes common cause with permanent ideological adversaries over momentary personal adversaries, and it spins a false narrative to justify that petty and vain choice. It's nauseating.

Posted by Rich | January 29, 2008 12:51 PM

Having been a HUGE Clinton fan forth the last 15 years, it pains me to say that I can never vote for them. Their obvious racebaiting of Obama is just beyond the pale (no pun intended) and is something I cannot in good conscience reward in November. Watching Bill extemporize on Jesse Jackson's wins in SC on Saturday sealed the deal. He was furious that his earlier and more subtle tactics hadn't worked and couldn't resist making another ridiculously obvious attempt to drive home his message.

Posted by Depressed in Charlottesville | January 29, 2008 12:55 PM

Matt, you are missing the bigger story here: People are just tired of the Bill and Hillary show. I think Bill was an OK president overall, and in comparison to W he was virtually Abraham Lincoln. But I've had enough of the Clinton psychodrama. Haven't you?

No. Or, more pointedly, I just don't care about "the Clinton psychodrama." First, I think people are dwelling too much on the Lewinski scandal. My guess is it's very unlikely something of that scale will happen again. In the first place, Hillary is much more disciplined than her husband. And if he should stray again from the marital bed (tee hee), it won't be a legal or constitutional issue. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if they undergo an amicable separation after the inauguration. But whatever the particulars, I just don't care. Seriously. You think the French are pulling their hair out because of the "psychodrama" of the Sarkozys? Who gives a fuck who the president is bonking if you've got a good job, and the government is conducting foreign and domestic policy in a prudent manner? Life is good under those circumstances. I mean, am I the only one who yearns for the days when our biggest national problem was oral sex? People can harp all they want to about the supposed "selfishness" of the Bill and Hillary, but it seems to me they channeled this "selfishness" into helping all Americans by assiduously working for the good of the country.

If you think Obama has a better chance at winning in November, you should vote for him. But if you think she's the stronger candidate, you're better off voting for her unless you don't mind the thoughts of four of eight more years of GOP rule. I can't fucking stand the thought of that, to be blunt. And I'm willing to deal with a little bit of Clintonian "psychodrama" if that's the price I have to pay for sensible policies and competent government. You see, I just picked up this cool device called a "remote control" and it will change the channel for me if this or that talking head only wants to discuss the psychodrama, and I'm not in the mood for it.

Posted by Jasper | January 29, 2008 12:56 PM

Based on their campaigns, I would say the thing that Obama and McCain have most in common is their anti-gay stance. Obama allies himself with anti-gay bigots, the ex-gay movement, etc. McCain, while opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment, supports such amendments on the state level, and maintain state sponsored anti-gay prejudice in the military.

Otherwise I agree they don't have much in common. Though, as a gay man, that similarity is pretty significant to me.

Posted by dk | January 29, 2008 12:57 PM

"There's a big, clear choice facing the country between the party of war, tax cuts, and the destruction of the planet and the other party -- the notion that the big story is the fortunes of the Clinton family is preposterous."

The big story of the Democratic primary IS the fortunes of the Clinton family. Or can anyone actually explain what it was that made Hillary such a dominant front-runner for the nomination? What, precisely, made her more experienced or capable than Dodd or Biden? What made her more appealing than Obama or Edwards? Seriously, what was it?

This is a woman with an extremely pedestrian resume for a Presidential candidate who's greatest public policy initiative (health care reform) turned into a debacle of historic proportions. So why were so many Democrats so willing to support her without even giving any other candidate a chance? Because her last name is Clinton. That's it. That's all.

Which isn't to say that Hillary isn't a good candidate on her merits, of course. But would Senators Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, two much more accomplished women, have garnered anything like the reflexive support that Hillary has received?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 29, 2008 1:05 PM

"Based on their campaigns, I would say the thing that Obama and McCain have most in common is their anti-gay stance. Obama allies himself with anti-gay bigots, the ex-gay movement, etc."

Hey, Sunshine. Have you missed the multiple occasions when Obama has talked about equality for gays in front of straight audiences? That's something Hillary (Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA)Clinton is not exactly known for.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 29, 2008 1:09 PM

What, precisely, made her more experienced or capable than Dodd or Biden? What made her more appealing than Obama or Edwards? Seriously, what was it?

MBunge:

1) Her toughness
2) Her tenacity
3) Her mastery of policy detail
4) Her ability to raise money
5) Her legendary discipline and work ethic
6) Her resume. You, an Obama supporter, might discount her position as First Lady. But there is a certain "wisdom of the crowds" in evidence here -- and I think it's valid. It's pretty obvious that Hillary wasn't a "First Lady" in the sense of a Laura Bush. She was a serious, hardcore policy wonk and international envoy, and her husband's most trusted adviser. And even her harshest critics wouldn't deny she was the heart and sole of a political team that has beaten Republican opponents in, what, eight or ten races? Most people think of Hillary Clinton as being a politician of substance. They're right. Finally, with respect to her failures in 1993, or her travails with Ken Starr, or the Lewinksi scandal, I'd much prefer a president who has a few battle scars. I think people tested by adversity are usually the stronger and wiser for it. I'd feel a lot better about voting for Obama after he served a term or two as Vice President.

Posted by Jasper | January 29, 2008 1:39 PM

Everyone should read the 9:37 comment by I Love Barack. It perfectly illustrates why many of us detest the Obama movement.

I'm sure most of you have been here longer than me and might be more familiar with ILB, but that sure sounded like spoof to me. I mean, he linked to Bill Kristol and used the phrase "despising the racist Billary".

Posted by Jen | January 29, 2008 2:00 PM

MBunge, does that explain why Obama let a homophobic bigot emcee and rant for a half an hour on stage during a big South Carolina campaign rally?

Talk is not action. Action would be disavowing homophobes, not having them represent him on campaigns. Obama's action sent a message that homophobia is fine, that ex-gay movements are fine. That's the message sent by McCain's actions too. That's what I was saying.

Obama supporters may be fine with that kind of bigotry, but when he decides to throw you under the bus, don't say that your gay friends didn't warn you.

Posted by dk | January 29, 2008 2:06 PM