Debate Videos

Here's Hillary Clinton's argument about the inadequacy of merely talking about change:

But here, Barack Obama argues that effective rhetoric and inspiration are, in fact, crucial to producing change:

Ultimately, the idea of running on a record of change or talking about how you've been producing change for thirty-five years (which sounds like an overestimate -- how much change was she really bringing about at the age of 25?) seems destined to wind up having you offer a lot of paradoxical-sounding phrases. Just because polls show people want change doesn't mean you ought to just start inserting "change" constantly into your talk even if it winds up making you say funny-sounding things. Clinton's brand is experience and competence and those are good brands.

As I side note, I think her team is possibly reading the lines of causation wrong -- voters in Iowa knew that "change" was Obama's message, and so people who showed up to vote for Obama also told pollsters they were primarily interested in change. Clinton voters, by contrast, are trained to talk about "experience." This kind of thing is, I think, a major failing of conventional polling methods which tends to fairly naively assume that respondents' reported candidate preferences are built out of their reported character trait and issue preferences. It's likely, however, to be the other way around -- people who like Candidate X come to embrace key parts of Candidate X's argument.

Comments

Obama is merely claiming he is a better speaker than Clinton. So what?

Clinton shows that she actually knows how the world works and has been effective in the past and as President, given the expanded operating arena, will be even more effective.

Posted by ken | January 6, 2008 1:10 AM

I completely agree about the phantom desire for "change." Of course Democrats want change, but the data out of Iowa almost certainly reflects the causal direction that you point out. Also, Clinton's rebirth as the "change" candidate reminds me of when Bush described himself as a "reformer with results" in the 2000 primary. Pure bullshit in Bush's case, and thin gruel in Clinton's.

You also say that "Clinton's brand is experience and competence and those are good brands." Some people think those actually aren't such good brands. People like this blogger named Matt Yglesias:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_experience_thing_2.php

Posted by minderbender | January 6, 2008 1:11 AM

I think that's generally true. Then again, I'm pretty sure that after these past seven years, most democrats really do think the thing most needed is change in the white house, in the way that you'll hear people say things like "my dog would be a better president than Bush."

Posted by mad6798j | January 6, 2008 1:11 AM

From a rhetorical standpoint, yah - it's solid on Clinton's part. The question is, from a *practical* standpoint: is it too little, too late? Has the mob already mentally/emotionally thrown in with Obama, hope, and all the rest?

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 6, 2008 1:12 AM

Well, Matt, a logical suggestion to test your hypothesis would be to go back and look at polls where Clinton led and see if the respondents were saying that competence was what they valued the most.

Interestingly, my sense is that was mostly not the case: change usually remained the top priority for Democrats even when Clinton was leading (as an aside, I believe honesty was usually the top attribute, not experience). In that sense, one could say recent events are really a grand connecting of the dots.

Posted by DTM | January 6, 2008 1:12 AM

A good point; once you start leaning toward one candidate, confirmation bias leads you to find their arguments persuasive.

Posted by Jason | January 6, 2008 1:13 AM

Well the opposition party generally has to run on change, or a new direction, or what have you. Otherwise, why not just stick with the party in power? Running on experience and competence is what incumbents or vice presidents do.

Posted by mad6798j | January 6, 2008 1:14 AM

Matt, I think you're right about the causation here.

I don't think I'm the only one who prefers Obama's record to Clinton's and will vote for him for that reason.

Posted by Jared | January 6, 2008 1:15 AM

Man, I had this argument so many times about exit polls from 2004. You're totally right.

Posted by jhupp | January 6, 2008 1:17 AM

Matt wrote: "It's likely, however, to be the other way around -- people who like Candidate X come to embrace key parts of Candidate X's argument."

Good point. It's even more clearly elucidated when a synthetic PR phrase (like "family values") is polled (or self-reported) in some elections and not so much in others--because Republicans are only mentioning it every third day this election instead of every third minute.

If someone reported "family values" in the nineties you knew they were more likely to vote republican. The rest of us wanted to maim and kill our family members I guess.

Posted by riffle | January 6, 2008 1:30 AM

Does anyone else think that HRC made a big mistake at the end of the debate?

When Charles Gibson went after all the Democrats and said "but can we really get change," the example she used was her husband raising taxes to balance the budget in his first term.

So, when she was asked "but is change really possible," her go-to example was her husband, who at the time was the "inexperienced outsider" guy, who ran against Washington, effectively bringing change.

I really think this is a big gaffe. She just went against her central "you need experience for change" message.

Posted by anonymiss | January 6, 2008 1:38 AM

[Internal Clinton staff meeting]

Bill Clinton: "We need a shot in the arm. You hear me boys? In the goddamn arm! Election held tomorrw, that son of bitch Obama would win it in a walk!"

Mark Penn: "Well he's the change candidate, sir."

Hillary Clinton: "Yeah."

Mark Penn: "A lot of people like that change. Maybe we should get us some."

Bill Clinton: "I'll change you, you soft-headed son of a bitch. How we gonna run change when we're running on experience? Is that the best idea you boys can come up with? Change?! Weepin' jesus on the cross. That's it! You may as well start drafting her concession speach right now."

Posted by joejoejoe | January 6, 2008 1:46 AM

Hillary's talk of "35 years of experience" is baloney and every single American who isn't a shill for the Clintons knows it.

What Hillary doesn't get is that the people who want "change" don't just want change from George Bush - they also want change from the Bill and Hillary Clintons, the type of people who will execute a man just for politics, or vote for an awful war just because of politics.

Hillary doesn't get what change is. And it shows.

And when you hear her talk about knowing how to get things done - this is the same person who had a Democratic president and congress and couldn't get Health Care done? Why? Because, to flip an old line, she is a divider, not a uniter.

Hopefully Tuesday in New Hampshire will show Obama winning big, and he'll win big in South Carolina too.

Anyone notice how Richardson and Edwards are both getting into the Obama camp too?

Sometimes everyone sees a winner and just knows...

Posted by TheCarpetMuncher | January 6, 2008 1:52 AM

It find it amusing that Hillary is trying to argue that she is "experienced" (read "I've been part of the establishment for 30 years," most notably as someone's wife) and this means I am the candidate of "change." You can't get more inside-the-beltway than the Clintons, yet she is the one who is going to change things. Quite a pretzel.

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 1:53 AM

Joe,

Ha! I was just looking that quote up!

Mark Penn: We could hire us a little fellow, even smaller than Obama's.

Bill: You slump-shouldered sack of nuts! Why, we'd look like a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies bragging on our own midget, don't matter how stumpy

Posted by Just Karl | January 6, 2008 1:56 AM

An Obama presidency promises us four years of great speaches, but that is about it.

He will be good to republicans and independents though. Never say a bad word about any of them.

No thanks.

Posted by ken | January 6, 2008 1:56 AM

Tough times to be touting your record of change. Is she saying things would have been much worse? That may be true, but it doesn't seem like the best vote-for-me argument.

("You idiots can't even see that you've already GOT change?" or something)

Also, on health care, most people want poor kids to have it. So we're glad those New Hampshire kids have it. But the problem seems bigger -- it's such an issue these days because so many people who AREN'T poor kids can't get it, and when they do, it's crazy expensive and simultaneously cheap.

While a laudable cause, that achievement line didn't seem like such a great health care boast.

The better argument is that Obama simply won't make sweeping changes -- with more specifics about why his plans won't work.

I agree that experience and competence are what she should be pushing.

She should STOP running for the first day in office. I think we can handle a president needing to find the paper clips. We're looking for someone who will make the most of the whole term.

Posted by tabby | January 6, 2008 1:56 AM

I'm an Obama fan, but let's not pretend that Clinton doesn't have a good case to make. After all, Bill Clinton really did run a good administration that changed a lot of people's lives for the better. It's not as though the Clinton brand itself is tainted. It's just that Hillary's claim to it is a little thin.

Posted by minderbender | January 6, 2008 1:58 AM

joejoejoe:

Fucking brillant.

Posted by UberMitch | January 6, 2008 1:59 AM

It bears pointing out to the forgetful that Bill Clinton (since Hillary claims she was 'co-president') was one of the most conservative Democratic presidents in American history. Real agents of change, they were.

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 1:59 AM

Jared's right. He's not the only one who is voting for Obama over Clinton for reasons relating to their records. I also prefer Obama's record to Clinton's.

So, perhaps that's why I didn't feel that good about tonight's debate. It cast Obama in a similar light to John Edwards, a candidate with a lot of progressive rhetoric, rhetoric that was a little to hot for me even, but not much actual substance to support it. But the real strength of Obama is not just that his rhetoric of hope and change, but the fact that he does have a track record to back it up and he does have the intellectual weight to back it up.

So, I was a bit disappointed when he let Clinton run with the notion that she's the only candidate that's actually done anything of note as much as he did (he offered a few short rebuttals to it at one point, but mainly stayed with the more Edwards-esque view).

That's not to say that I was completely disappointed. I liked how he brought in a very powerful idea and that is the idea of bottom-up change. The idea that we need a leader that can reach out to average Americans and get them involved in forming the connections necessarily and organizing them so that they can bring about change from the bottom up, because in reality, organized interests are the ones that carry power. So, when voters and community members become apathetic to politics, the power shifts to those who have non-organizational resources...capital to pay for lobbyist representation before Senators and Representatives for instance.

That is an issue where Obama really outshines his competition. Clinton and Edwards both, in their own ways, argue that they will fight for the average American against powerful interests. Clinton tends to focus more on the Republican Party while Edwards tends to focus more on "lobbyists and special interests".

What Obama realizes and what these two appear to be missing is that most change in America doesn't come from the Federal government. Instead, it happens at the community level and what Obama is doing is he is building the community level support necessary not only to pass resolutions through Congress by tilting the balances in how active the average citizen is in lobbying their government but also to implement the plans passed.

I suspect that Obama's insight comes from his past as a community organizer, because there he learned first hand what community-level activism can do to improve people's lives. On a more anecdotal level, his candidacy coupled with the work I did in Iowa has helped convince me that this kind of activism is needed and I intend to participate more in community issues in the future as a result. I suspect and hope that such is the case for other young people across this nation. Because if nothing else, Obama's candidacy represents a new political awakening among my generation that will help refresh and renew an American political process that is and was being seriously compromised by citizen apathy.

Posted by Meng Bomin | January 6, 2008 2:01 AM

But Hillary's not experienced . . . really.

Posted by southpaw | January 6, 2008 2:04 AM

Sigh. We all like Obama, but Bill Clinton was pretty damn good. Let's not revise history just because we don't want Hillary to get the nomination. Even Krugman admits that Bill did a good job.

Posted by minderbender | January 6, 2008 2:09 AM

I think the bottom line is just that most Americans of any stripe are just sick of all the Clinton/Bush crap and all of the baby-boomer/culture war/blow job impeachment baggage that she carries. Oh, except some baby-boomers who are still fighting like it's 1968. Sorry, I don't know one person under 35 who supports Hillary. It is either Obama, Edwards, or Ron Paul. Yes, that is my anecdotal evidence.

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 2:11 AM

Just Karl - Mark Penn is exactly the kind of guy who thinks trying to out-'stumpy' the other candidate in good strategy

UberMitch - I stole the line from the movie 'Oh Brother! Where Art Thou?' which you probably already knew but I figured I'd add that info for people who haven't seen it.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 6, 2008 2:12 AM

We all like Obama, but Bill Clinton was pretty damn good. Let's not revise history just because we don't want Hillary to get the nomination.

This is an example of MY's thesis of reverse causation of Obama supporters. Basically this kind of thinking is going on:
Obama Supporter: Obama good! Hillary bad!
Hillary Supporter: But Bill was good president!
Obama Supporter: Hmmm... no Bill was bad president!

Posted by Dan the Man | January 6, 2008 2:15 AM

Dan, liberal Democrats in general have been saying they were disappointed in Clinton for years. Back in 2002, the Nation of all things felt that liberals in general were too hard on Clinton. He had a couple of accomplishments, but that's setting the bar low because you can't run the executive branch for 8 years and not do anything.

Posted by Reality Man | January 6, 2008 2:43 AM

Reality Man and other Obama supporters have convinced me. Bill Clinton was a bad President.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 6, 2008 2:46 AM

"people who like Candidate X come to embrace key parts of Candidate X's argument."

I think you really hit that one on the head. I've seen this happen in myself many times. LIke the vast majority of people, I can't be bothered to figure out all the ins and outs of every issue, but when I find someone who I generally like and trust, that person, whether it's a candidate or a friend, can sell me their plan.

Unless it's insurance. I don't need a whole life policy, thank you.

Posted by KathyF | January 6, 2008 2:54 AM

I love the applause for Hilary, it seems appropriate for the previous night's booing

Posted by John | January 6, 2008 4:04 AM

When she says that she has been an agent of change for 35 years, it always sounds to me like she's saying that she /was/ an agent of change thirty five years ago.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 6, 2008 4:27 AM

Obama Supporter: Hmmm... no Bill was bad president!

Rather than caricaturing one another's arguments, how about this: Bill was a decent president, did some good and some bad things; I would expect the same sort of thing from Hillary; and I support Obama because I think he might be a wicked awesome president! There's no need to denigrate Bill's accomplishments in order to believe that Obama would be better than Hillary.

On a different point: Obama's statement that words do have power is factually correct -- quite obviously so, I think. The Bible, the Koran, the Declaration of Independence: all a bunch of words. Those Republican talking points and framing devices we're always complaining about: more words, and we know all too well how effective they can be. Anyone who follows politics and the media ought to have developed by now a pretty clear sense of the importance of words.

Posted by Tom | January 6, 2008 5:05 AM

Obama's message is the same as Bill Clinton's: 3rd way, compromise, work with republicans ... all that crap. Bill had two years before he ran into a Republican party that had gone insane and was impossible to work with. In those 2 years he managed to get in a tax increase, that eventually led to budget surpluses, but failed to get health care done. After that he was just a good caretaker of government while republicans blocked everything and went bonkers on the attack.

Whichever democrat wins the presidency needs to hit the ground running while they have a democratic congress. It is a huge opportunity that might not come again for another 15 years. That's why I favor Edwards, he would be more aggressive in getting things done as opposed to Obama's kumbaya style or Hillary's careful competent style. Though I do wish he, or any of them for that matter, would be more ambitious with his health care plan

Posted by miguel | January 6, 2008 5:24 AM

Ditto, Tom.

I think Obama's got an amazing record compared to Hillary, but let's not knock the importance of making inspirational speeches, both on the campaign and in office.

Drew Westen's The Political Brain explored how liberals have ignored the use of emotion and narrative in communicating with citizens. Thank God we now have a candidate who understands this on a gut level. Inspiring words are essential to producing real change.

One question for the junkies out there: under what scenario can Edwards win?

Posted by Jacob | January 6, 2008 5:30 AM

sounds like an overestimate -- how much change was she really bringing about at the age of 25?

35 years ago she was a staff attorney for the Chiildrens' Defense Fund; the next year she went to work for the House Watergate committee . . .

Posted by rea | January 6, 2008 5:48 AM

Me 3 on liking Obama because of his experience. I like H's argument, that experience of having accomplished change is a great predictor of a future of accomplishing change, I just say that and point at him, not her.

And I agree with whoever else said s/he was frustrated that Obama didn't pipe up with his very significant experience - he did say he passed that tough ethics bill, good, but he should have matched her healthcare with his, which I think amounted to more people covered, but I can't be sure. Whatever. I can't complain, his thing is working. But yeah, I feel like the only one going "Obama - the experience and skill we need to get things done!"

But I totally agree with what Obama said about Bill, but I'd put it harsher. Bill succeeded in lowering the budget because Newt Gingrich wanted to lower it too, but when it came to doing Democrat-y things, failure after failure after failure, and actual bad things happened, like that b.s. tough on crime garbage, which Hillary is still for, and DOMA, and Bill also didn't give a rat's ass about the environment so I can't even say he tried and failed. I have no love for Bill Clinton and never did.

Posted by Phoebe | January 6, 2008 5:54 AM

Yes, change is Obama's mantra. The problem is the lack of specifics. What exactly does 'change' mean? Is he going to change the hearts and minds of Republicans? Uh huh. It is just so naive. It's all narrative, no substance.

Bill Clinton was overall a good president. The rewriting of history here is mind-boggling. He made mistakes, some big ones, but overall the 90's were good.

Posted by mollycoddle | January 6, 2008 6:54 AM

It is rarely about what you do but how you do it.

In the case of HC vs. BO - Barack beats her on the "what" and "how".

What: He has spend more time in office than her (experience), has a better voting record (HC was doing everything Bush wanted her to do), BO has a more realistic and pragmatic health care and social security approach which is not about party politics (Paul Krugman anybody?)...

How: he is not hysterical, bitchy, unpredictable, not polarizing... He can not only answer tough questions but also simple ones (HC loses it completely when confronted with any question. She always reacts as if the whole world if after her and that any question is in reality a trick-question. I hate how her mind searches for the cards, etc.)

I am glad that Americans in Iowa have listened to their hearts and minds rather than the pressure and fear and smear of the Clinton campaign. Clinton deserves to be last - not just in Iowa.

PS: I respect Bill for having had either the patience/loyalty or the political resolve to ... He should have had even more interns around him?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | January 6, 2008 6:59 AM

Bill Clinton was a fine conservative/southern president, at least for his last 6 years. Obama will clearly follow the same model. The question is whether Edwards can demonstrate that Obama is a return to Clinton. Zogby just claimed on C-PAN that Edwards has picked up support. I'm not sure I understood the methodology, since his number didn't change, but there it is.

Oh, if you want to change the country, you don't need rhetoric, just look at the changes Bush has brought on without any rhetorical skills whatsoever.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 6, 2008 7:33 AM

Hugo Pottisch:

BO has a more realistic and pragmatic health care and social security approach which is not about party politics (Paul Krugman anybody?)...

Mandates are necessary to get universal health care. Without it there'd be free loaders and expenses would rise (What next? No longer requiring drives to have car insurance next?). Social Security: this is the bedrock of progressivism, true (as if that were a bad thing), but also it remains the most successful government program ever--one copied around the world. If we follow Obama's plan it kills two birds with one stone: a program that significantly reduces poverty (not a remotely trivial or "political" issue), but also one that fundamentally undermines the case for progressivism itself. Why is it so wrong to safeguard a government program that is amazing on two fronts? Politics affects every aspect of our daily lives. To deny its profound importance is not being naive, but absolutely delusional.

What I truly hate about the Obama movement is this confusion of "partisanship" with anything that opposes the right, including the Almighty Market, and "progressivism" with whatever Obama happens to support. No, I'm not some "baby boomer" (twentysomething) nor am I a Hillary supporter (Edwards; will now vote for Obama). I just can't stand the defensive (at times, bizarrely) nature of Obama supporters.

Posted by Davidson | January 6, 2008 7:51 AM

Obama's message is the same as Bill Clinton's: 3rd way, compromise, work with republicans ... all that crap.

Really? I don't see compromise as a prominent theme in his speeches. I haven't seen him utter the (stupid old) phrase "third way." Can anyone who believes that this is Obama's message provide a quotation or two?

Obama's rhetoric of unity looks to me like a mirror image of GWB's in 2000. He talks about unity in order to try to get people to unite around progressive proposals, not in order to offer a compromise. That can be an effective tactic.

What exactly does 'change' mean?

Universal health care, sane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, ending torture, making it easier for workers to organize, etc, etc. You know, the same progressive stuff we'd want from any Democratic president. Except that there's little reason to expect a sane foreign policy from Hillary, and I don't trust her on civil liberties either.

Is he going to change the hearts and minds of Republicans? Uh huh. It is just so naive.

I disagree that it's naive. It would be naive to plan on changing the hearts and minds of Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh, but it's perfectly reasonable to work on changing the hearts and minds of some of the ordinary folks who vote Republican. They're not all evil plutocrats. They just vote for 'em because they haven't yet been convinced not to. In the long run, to build the kind of progressive America we want, it's necessary to change the hearts and minds of some Republican voters. One of the best reasons to support Obama is that he, more than Clinton or even Edwards, has the ability to persuade those people.

Posted by Tom | January 6, 2008 8:11 AM

I think it's a bit odd that we're all talking about experience vs. change, when really I think that a lot of it comes down to trust.

Obama in general seems, perhaps, a bit more trustworthy than his opponents (I think that's what a poll I saw said). Not everyone approves of his ideas -- from his hopes of compromising with Republicans to his lack of a mandate on health insurance -- but I don't think many people are afraid that he's insincere (either in holding views other than those he espouses or in regarding policy proposals as political tools for winning elections and debates within government rather than plans for governance).

However, this is most amplified when it comes to foreign policy. Simply put, I think a lot of rank-and-file Democrats, including me, feel like they simply can't trust their party's elite when it comes to foreign policy. Tough words from the likes of Harry Reid about standing up to Bush and neoconservatism and charting an independent foreign policy course are followed by collaboration and desperate attempts not to look "weak" on foreign policy.

Clinton has proposed a reasonable, if somewhat hawkish, foreign policy. Edwards has proposed a fairly dovish one. However, the real problem isn't the policies they propose, but their credibility in proposing them. Some may regard this as unjustified, considering that any Democrat who actually becomes president will actually be in the position of making foreign policy independently and not reacting to Bush or anything, so the risk of a "Republican-lite" Democratic foreign policy seems greatly attenuated, but I believe that the average Democrat simply trusts Obama more when it comes to changing the U.S.'s longstanding misguided policies in the middle east and throughout the world.

Posted by Julian Elson | January 6, 2008 8:19 AM

Peter Driscoll writes:

Oh, if you want to change the country, you don't need rhetoric, just look at the changes Bush has brought on without any rhetorical skills whatsoever.

What? Can we at least differentiate between change that the majority wants (Obama) and change the majority does not want (Bush)? You certainly need rhetoric if you actually want your changes to be popular, and perceived as in the interests of the majority. Bush's lack of rhetorical skill ensured, even required, that he'd only bring about "change" by devious means, because he couldn't hope to bring the country at large along with him. Rhetoric is what galvanizes people, and Obama understands that you create positive change by building a coalition (inspiring people) first. If something doesn't have mass support it won't happen in the proper, above-board way we deserve as citizens. So yes, if you want change for the better, you need someone whose rhetoric can inspire people to work toward it. Obama is dead right that we need a leader who will inspire people to sacrifice. Cynics like you apparently expect the president and his cadre of appointees to just make everything happen with their amazing governing wonk skills, while ignoring what government and leadership are actually all about. An inspirational head of the party will get more people to vote for the party's initiatives. The Clintons had their chance, and for all their supposed governing acumen they still left a 50/50 country in their wake.

Posted by Bil | January 6, 2008 8:21 AM

I mean, consider the contrast between Obama's and Bill Clinton's rise to prominence power. Clinton's seizure of the presidency was narrow opportunism from a little-known governor, triangulating his way through a 3-way race featuring a weakish incumbent. Obama's rise strikes me as much more organic. Anyone can correct my impression if I'm wrong.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 8:35 AM

Rather than caricaturing one another's arguments

How is this any more of a caricature than MY's claim that "voters in Iowa knew that "change" was Obama's message, and so people who showed up to vote for Obama also told pollsters they were primarily interested in change?" As I made very clear, all I was saying was the claim that people were revising history about Bill to justify why Hillary shouldn't get the nomination was an act of reverse causation/rationalization just like MY's claim that because Obama's message was change, Obama voters told pollsters "change" was what they were interested in to the pollster.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 6, 2008 9:16 AM

My point was not cynical but rather that rhetoric of change must describe the change with specificity. Its difficult to do in the context of the caucus/NH primary schedule, but Bush pulled it off. He was a change from Clinton in the minds of pretty close to half the country. The fact that his stupid policies have forced the country to look elsewhere does not mean that Bush didn't represent empty, rhetorical change. Obama's "I didn't vote for the AUMF" and "lets reach out together" is not a policy. Its rhetoric devoid of meaning. Will he sit down with Pharma and mortgage bankers and insurance companies and the broadcasters and expect them to just get along? I just don't see it.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 6, 2008 9:34 AM

tom said:

"Universal health care, sane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, ending torture, making it easier for workers to organize, etc, etc. You know, the same progressive stuff we'd want from any Democratic president. Except that there's little reason to expect a sane foreign policy from Hillary, and I don't trust her on civil liberties either."

I disagree that there is little reason to expect sane foreign policy decisions from Hillary. On what do you base that notion?

________________________________________

and this:

"I disagree that it's naive. It would be naive to plan on changing the hearts and minds of Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh, but it's perfectly reasonable to work on changing the hearts and minds of some of the ordinary folks who vote Republican. They're not all evil plutocrats. They just vote for 'em because they haven't yet been convinced not to. In the long run, to build the kind of progressive America we want, it's necessary to change the hearts and minds of some Republican voters. One of the best reasons to support Obama is that he, more than Clinton or even Edwards, has the ability to persuade those people."

I beg to differ. I know a lot of conservatives-fiscal conservatives, not evangelicals-and they will never be persuaded by Obama. Or Hillary, for that matter. The dislike of democrats is too deep, I guess. I don't even discuss the election with my conservative family-it just disintegrates into a fight. What's the point?

I have heard a lot of hype about Obama, but little of substance. It reminds me of that old saying that I heard on a show a few weeks ago; "He's all hat, and no cattle." Maybe he isn't, but you can't prove it by the fawning press reports.

Posted by Susan | January 6, 2008 9:37 AM

The whole "change" thing is quite idiotic since all of these candidates have similar positions and likely would produce about the same level of change.

Hillary has shown she can withstand the Republican blowtorch and carry the fight to them. Edwards too. But I remain to be convinced by Obama. Democrats have to avoid bandwagon thinking; momentum is not an inherent quality of a candidate or a reason to vote for them.

Posted by bob h | January 6, 2008 9:43 AM

As Andrew Sullivan says, "if you do not know what Obama is proposing in many areas, it's only because you don't know how to use Google." Take the time to read his specific proposals, then feel free to criticize them. But don't argue from ignorance.

Here's a good place to start:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/in-his-own-word.html

Posted by Susan, don't be lazy | January 6, 2008 9:50 AM

Peter Driscoll responds:

My point was not cynical but rather that rhetoric of change must describe the change with specificity.

How's this for specific: a uniting, consensus-building, likeable and inspiring figure -- one who proves he inspires independents -- who is also a Democrat, proposes taking the White House back from Republican control and working with a Democratic Congress, and Republicans who are more favorably disposed towards him than they will ever be towards Hillary Clinton, with the goal of passing legislative reform acceptable to the majority of (liberal centrist) Americans. Hillary has a proven track record of being neither uniting, consensus building, inspiring, nor likeable. That's specific enough for me.

Its difficult to do in the context of the caucus/NH primary schedule, but Bush pulled it off. He was a change from Clinton in the minds of pretty close to half the country. The fact that his stupid policies have forced the country to look elsewhere does not mean that Bush didn't represent empty, rhetorical change. Obama's "I didn't vote for the AUMF" and "lets reach out together" is not a policy. Its rhetoric devoid of meaning. Will he sit down with Pharma and mortgage bankers and insurance companies and the broadcasters and expect them to just get along? I just don't see it.

Bush ran as a "uniter not a divider" and then governed as a divider. If you were to assume Obama, because his rhetoric must be equally "empty," will govern the same way, fine. But you don't assume that. You appear to assume it doesn't matter what attitude people profess to have about governing, that it's all in the doing. To say Obama won't reveal his policies, and is "all talk," is unfair and untrue. And look at Hillary's track record vis a vis the attitude toward governing. It's all politically expedient triangulation, alienating to her own party without winning over the opposition. "It doesn't matter what I say I believe on the campaign trail, it's what I say I will do in office." Well, no, it's whether how you approach problem-solving in office reflects what you said you believed while running. Crucial difference.

Leading the Democratic party & federal government isn't foremost about the minutiae of brokering deals with Pharma and other fatcats. It's about building a consensus first. Bush won 50% of the vote; I would bet Obama will do considerably better than that, but we'll see. If you want progressive change, you first need more people to vote Democratic. You don't get that with earnest wonkishness and a backward-looking leader any more than you do by squeaking by on backlash and fear, as Bush did in 2000 and 2004, respectively. You gotta inspire people first. This is a groundswell moment.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 9:57 AM

LOL, good one. I like it! I've read Sullivan-I read him every day, as do you, obviously. He, too, is a bit thin on substance. Did you read his responses to Bainbridge's questions? A bit vague, dontcha think? I have also gone to ontheissues and read about him.

My point is this: it is not in the mainstream press. They should be articulating the views and policies of all of the candidates, and they are not-for the most part. There have been a few critical pieces, but very few.

And I have to say the same for Obama's supporters. We read that he has 'good judgement.' Start talking about it. I want the electorate to vote based on facts, not fantasy.

Maybe I'm asking too much. Most of my friends, who are quite bright, don't understand why politics fascinates me so much. They barely read national news or watch it on TV. I find it all a bit depressing. We seem to have become a nation who would rather watch Dancing With the Stars than a presidential debate.

Posted by Susan | January 6, 2008 9:59 AM

bob h:

The whole "change" thing is quite idiotic since all of these candidates have similar positions and likely would produce about the same level of change.

This misses the point. It's not the similar positions; it's getting the most people to vote for you. You have that, you have a bigger mandate for the change.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 10:00 AM

All I know is, I never want to hear the word 'change' again for as long as I live. "Of course I want change, but you don't get change by changing things. You make change by changing change. And I've changed that." It is like listening to the goddamn Smurfs.

Posted by Chris E. | January 6, 2008 10:07 AM

Susan:

We seem to have become a nation who would rather watch Dancing With the Stars than a presidential debate.

Boy, you sure have your finger on the nation's pulse. When I was a kid it was Solid Gold, with Rick Dees.

Obama's good judgment is a matter of record. It's also a matter of temperament. If you don't get that from watching him speak and debate, well, don't vote for him.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 10:08 AM

Bill said:

"Obama's good judgment is a matter of record. It's also a matter of temperament. If you don't get that from watching him speak and debate, well, don't vote for him."

I won't vote for him. I don't see where his good judgment is a matter of record, unless you mean the vote against the war. I was against the war, too, from the beginning, but that hardly makes me presidential material. And what do you mean about his temperament? He is even, balanced? That's good. That could also mean that he has trouble making up his mind. Those are vague terms, and really don't mean much at all.

Posted by Susan | January 6, 2008 10:30 AM

In many ways Clinton was a GREAT President: brilliant, an incredibly quick study, essentially had both a teleprompter and a rolodex hard wired into his brain, did the political and policy cost benefit analysis on any given issue the way most people get up to go to the bathroom. And, yes, he was usually on the right side of the issues (for me), triangulating and all. Perhaps that's why I actually worked in the Administration for 2 years (in about as low a Sched C position as you could find in the federal government at the time--of course, there are thousands of them now available for any old graduate/semi-graduate of Liberty U. or some other bible diploma mill).

However, for all the Hillary supporters who are starting to diss Obama by insinuating that his supporters think Clinton wasn't a great president, please consider: the last half of his Presidency became an utter wash because of what ultimately was his fault. You can blame (correctly) the Repukes all you want for being ultimate douchebags about the whole thing, but hey, he didn't *have* to do what he did, did he? I mean, in times like that, yeah--a little self-control goes a long way. The parsing later on that exemplified his defense of his actions only served to hurt him (and us) more.

Plus, as much as I liked how he manhandled the Republicans (like in the govt shutdown showdown with Newt) at the time, I think that that "winner take all" attitude to politics and policy was ultimately damaging to all of us, and to Dems in particular. It essentially precipitated the demise of moderate GOPers on the Hill, gave rise to swine like DeLay, and once the GOPers got control of all the branches, has provided seven years of self-justification for driving the bus over the cliff. This ultimately hasn't done anyone any good, has it?

WRT Hillary: I think she was comparatively an impressive First Lady in many ways, but I don't think her "experience" with the Health Care debacle actually gives one confidence about her experience, as other commenters have noted.

Posted by well | January 6, 2008 10:37 AM

Susan, the one exhibiting no apparent curiosity about the totality Obama's judgment, good or otherwise, is you. If you're still looking for evidence, you're in the wrong place, this being a blog thread where people largely tend to have made up their own minds. The man has a public record, which, if interested, you're more than capable of investigating. Read his books, for example. Track his early career. Use the Google. He's made many judgments, in public, and it's up to you to decide whether they were good ones, instead of complaining that you still aren't familiar with them.

And if you've gotten the impression that he may not be able to make up his mind, again, don't vote for him. But it sounds like you just don't know one way or the other. So go find out, or not. He's made up his mind many times.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 10:37 AM

I have tried and tried, but I can't find it in me to hate Hillary and I can't find it in me to idolize Obama.

Posted by bird52 | January 6, 2008 10:46 AM

I have tried and tried, but I can't find it in me to hate Hillary and I can't find it in me to idolize Obama.

What stupidity. They're both just asking for your vote.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 10:52 AM

bird52, you don't have to do either, just vote for one of them.

Posted by well | January 6, 2008 10:53 AM

Susan, you are right on. Hillary should come out and promise that if elected, there will be mandatory castration for a all men.

Posted by dana | January 6, 2008 10:53 AM

Susan, you want to see just how good Senator Obama's judgment is? Read on.

Barack Obama:

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 10:57 AM

From the founder of the Washington Monthly:

"Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.

Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

As others have pointed on, he helped to pass a good ethics bill in the Senate. What accomplishments can Clinton point to? What has she done as a Senator? She hasn't exactly withstood attacks. What are people expecting, Republican attacks to kill her? She's in a safe Senate seat and is losing a primary campaign that was hers to lose. Weathering Republican attacks only counts as demonstration of leadership if you accomplish something despite those attacks, which she has never done. In addition, she has put forward the most hawkish, AIPAC-friendly foreign policy team. Edwards doesn't really have a record of accomplishment either. He went all in in Iowa, campaigned there harder than anyone and spent more time in the state, had huge name recognition there and still got the same position he did in 2004. What record of accomplishment does he have? Just because he uses fighting words doesn't mean that he can fight a winning battle. You can't win a battle without troops and Edwards has never shown he is able to summon the troops. Neither has Clinton. In Iowa, Obama did and did it in a way that few believed he could do, such as bringing out the youth vote and capturing independents.

Posted by Reality Man | January 6, 2008 11:07 AM

Obama is an excellent orator. And he is highly intelligent. I just don't think that he's ready for prime time. Here is a link to an article in the current Washington Monthly that you may find interesting:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801w.widmer.html

Posted by Susan | January 6, 2008 11:15 AM

Susan, wait, I'm not talking about the oration, I'm talking about the substance of the speech.

It will only take you two minutes. Read it.

And then tell me if President Clinton agreed with the substance of the speech.

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 11:19 AM

I just don't think that he's ready for prime time.

What a revealing cliche.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 11:28 AM

At the very least, at least Obama has an honest and straightforward appeal he can make to voters.

Hillary's reason for running, whole argument for qualification -- "I was married to the last Democratic President" i.e. Restoration -- is something that is understood by all but can never be uttered by her. The whole thing is wink-wink.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 11:34 AM

More cliche than using 'good judgment', Bill? You're getting testy, and that's no good. I have used 'the Google' and read about him. But where is it in the NYT? The WaPo had one decent op-ed-the Charles Peters piece that hlah quoted. Read Frank Rich, read the Huffington Post. It's all hearts and flowers and fluff.

hlah, I agree with his words. But being president will take more than words. Well, the coming months will tell a lot. If he's got the right stuff, then he will be the candidate. I'll watch-and learn.

And now it's time to walk my poor dog. He's been campaigning for an hour or more. Good day, gents.

Posted by Susan | January 6, 2008 11:39 AM

As for the Washington Monthly argument, it's tack is JFK traveled more widely as a younger man than Obama. That's pretty weak tea if you ask me. Obama's background is not sorely lacking in international exposure, and his education credentials are easily on par with Kennedy's. Also, it's a far different world today, in terms of the huge, daily, nay, hourly, dissemination of information about international goings-on; to suggest that Obama is meaningfully less aware of the international scene, and therefore less qualified to have informed opinions about it, than Kennedy was, is unpersuasive.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 11:43 AM

Obama may have hit the gamer in his response, cited in this post, to Hillary's argument that she (through Bill) has been the effective change agent, while Obama is making empty promises. This multi-tiered riff buried Bill while praising him - giving him 'tremendous credit' for outmaneuvering the Republicans on budget matters while pointing out that he never built the coalition to push through a major Dem initiative like health care reform.

At the same time, he had the perfect response to the "he's just talk" line of attack. Politics is almost literally all talk. You've got to be good in the cloak room, at the negotiating table, on the debate floor. What gives a politician the ultimate strength to push through change is to convince the mass of voters to support his or her effort to on something major like health care reform. "Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens." That's dead-on.

Posted by Asp | January 6, 2008 11:57 AM

Well, the coming months will tell a lot. If he's got the right stuff, then he will be the candidate.

I thought we were talking about the right stuff to be president, not candidate for president. But the fact is, all you really have to go on is the person's proven character and judgment, because you really don't know the particulars of what will happen once they're elected. I think the basic choice is pretty clear, and that Obama moreover stands to carry A LOT more Democratic momentum with him into the congressional seats.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 11:58 AM

Bill- I was referring to the years- long vilification of Hillary and the much more recent romanticization of Obama. Must require extended thinking (an ability you obviously lack).

Posted by bird52 | January 6, 2008 12:08 PM

Would the Clinton apologists please tell me more about why he was a great President than "the 90's were good." What was Bill's signature accomplishment? NAFTA? Don't ask, don't tell? Welfare reform? I mean, if all you can come up with is a government shutdown or a balanced budget that was quickly squandered by the next President, then he doesn't really have much of a legacy. See the JFK thread for a Democratic President with substance (space program, civil rights, missile crisis, etc). For me the Clinton Presidency seemed like one long series of Somalias, and Wacos, and Elian Gonzalez's.

For all Hillary's experience, she also has a problem coming up with tangible examples of accomplishment.

Posted by Just Karl | January 6, 2008 12:19 PM

Susan, you want to see just how good Senator Obama's judgment is was in 2002, when he wasn't in the national spotlight? Read on.

Fixed your typo, hlah. But please, continue to act like it's 2004.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 12:36 PM

Way to reproduce the concept that there are only two candidates in the race, there, Matt.

Is the Beltway KoolAid binary?

Posted by lambert strether | January 6, 2008 1:40 PM

pseudonymous in nc: Fixed your typo, hlah. But please, continue to act like it's 2004.

You mean, the same 2004 when John Edwards said: I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.

Continue to act like you're head's not buried in the sand

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 2:17 PM

Yeah, hlah, the same 2004 when Obama had the electoral fight of his life against the GOP titan that is Alan Keyes.

Do you actually remember the 2002 mid-terms, or were you more worried about junior prom?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 2:47 PM

pseudonymous in nc: Do you actually remember the 2002 mid-terms, or were you more worried about junior prom?

What election was John Edwards worried about in 2002? And if he was secretly against the war, why did he co-sponsor the bill?

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 3:11 PM

If you feel like a really strong liberal and leftist take on the 'progressive' bona fides of all of the remaining Democratic candidates, you might want to listen to the Berkeley listener-sponsored radio station KPFA's Sunday Show from this morning, available as a free stream or podcast.

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=24158

No hagiography going on in that show, and no mistaking the supposed "progressive" credentials of major political candidates with the realities of the overwhelmingly hawkish U.S. foreign policy establishment, and I'm only halfway through the 2 hour show. (No commercials, either, not live or in the podcast, since KPFA has no ads.) Among guests are Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report and Sam Husseini, of the Institute for Public Accuracy, and then callers.

Whoever is elected, if it be among the top 3 Dem's, it will have to be a combination of some new & unforeseen civic resistance at home and changing dynamics abroad if we are to somehow deter the real war- and hawk-mongering policies of the U.S., because it certainly won't come out of the philosophies, statements, and backers of the major candidates.

But then, what else is new?

Posted by El Cid | January 6, 2008 3:15 PM

This was Hillary in 1969, the first student ever to deliver an an address at Wellesley's Commencement. She was the students' choice because she had worked hard to make CHANGES in the college's grading system and admissions cr