Obama's Conservofans

Reading what Ross says here, I realize that what I wrote about Barack Obama's admirers among the conservative pundit class is open to misinterpretation. Here's something that people I talk to sometimes say, but that I don't believe:

Conservative pundits like David Brooks like to praise Barack Obama because they think he'll be an easy mark in the general election.

What I do think is that praising Barack Obama appeals to conservative pundits in large part because, right now, praising Obama is a useful means by which to denigrate Hillary Clinton. As such, I think part of the background for things like Brooks' praise of Obama is belief that he's likely to lose the primary. I think there's a desire on the right to make the 2008 election mostly about the Clinton family rather than being about contemporary American conservatism's horrid record in office. Portraying the current Democratic primary as an apocalyptic struggle between the forces of light and the forces of Clintonism nicely sets up the general election as a second round between light and Clinton. Do I see this as a machiavellian scheme hatched out of Karl Rove's front office? No. But that's my diagnosis of the function of Obamafandom. If Obama loses the primary, Obamafandom becomes a reason to vote Republican -- the Democratic Party is so rotten that it rejected the One. If Obama wins the primary, I assume that Obamafandom will rapidly wither away. It will turn out that the Democratic Party is so rotten that tainted the One. Or something like that.

Meanwhile, what I'm trying to say about the real world is that there's just no justification for viewing the Obama/Clinton choice as some kind of night and day Moment of Decision for America. There are differences between the two of them, but in the scheme of things they're either small differences or fuzzy ones, not the gaping void that many on the right seem to perceive.

Comments

>>but in the scheme of things they're either small differences or fuzzy ones, not the gaping void that many on the right seem to perceive.

i dunno, the way each of them is trying to win the presidency seems like a gaping void to me.

is Obama perfect? no. but he goes out of his way not to demonize his opponents, even when he could, and Clinton seems to playing right out of the Rove playbook.

these are massive differences to me. one person is trying to win by consensus, the other slash and burn. i'm sick of slash and burn.

Posted by rob! | January 30, 2008 8:41 AM

I think Douhat understood your original post
correctly and objected to it on the grounds
that there is a substantive reason to be attracted
to Obama for conservatives. There may be no
substantive policy differences but there is a
large linguistic difference. Obama has developed
a language of patriotism for the left, and this
- purely as substance-free discourse - has enormous
appeal to conservatives. It matters to many of them
more than any program. It's his big strength.

Posted by tm | January 30, 2008 8:46 AM

Many on the right AND the liberal blogosphere, I believe. I support Obama and even I think Dkos, for example, has turned into the ultimate Obama echo chamber. Wish they'd tone it down--they make the candidate seem, hm, "arrogant"? "messiah-like"? nah...

Anyway, whether deliberate or not, recent events (perpetrated by the Clintons or smoothly manipulated by Obama--take your pick depending on what side you're on) have really angered certain Democrats to the point where they are running around like certain 2000 Bush supporters who finally realized Iraq was a bad idea and switched to Kerry in 2004, while certain gloating Republicans are saying "I told you so" to those Dems who have "seen the light" and passed into Clinton hatred.

If you (simplistically) looked at the task of being a politician as being broken down into what policies will they enact (and what ideology do they believe) and what style will they use to govern (what is there character like, how will they get things done, are they corrupt), they aren't the same things at all--as many people who have lived under certain big city Democratic mayors can attest to. There's little daylight between Clinton and Obama on the former, and to Democrats, they should be seen as equally positive. On the latter, though, it's fair to say that Obama comes out ahead for many people, Republicans and Democrats.

Posted by JMS | January 30, 2008 8:50 AM

I think you're dead wrong here.

This doesn't explain why my Republican brother-in-law likes Obama, nor why my non-political writing group members like Obama, nor why so many others just plain like Obama.

It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

Pundits are just like everyone else. They just like Obama because he's a particularly inspiring figure in a crowd of drones. In this respect there are huge differences between Clinton and Obama.

Charisma really does cross party lines. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

Posted by KathyF | January 30, 2008 8:51 AM

There you go again, making politicians no more than hangers on which can be draped issues and positions.
That's just not the way most people see it or vote.

We Obamafans may not see be a big difference with Hillary on the issues, but we do see a gaping void on ability to inspire, honesty, tone, baggage (or lack thereof), authenticity, and simple likability. This kind of stuff isn't just fluff. The president isn't just head bureaucrat; she's head of state. She's our face to the world. She embodies us, at psychological and spiritual levels.

So the nausea many of us feel for the Clintons after all these years matters. It's not just Republicans who feel it, and, on the Democratic side, it's not just people who've fallen hard for Obama.

Posted by Ban Johnson | January 30, 2008 8:51 AM

Two words on MY's topic that liberals and progressives should keep in mind when people like Brooks, Sullivan, Bill Bennett, Joe Scarborough, Bill Kristol, et al weigh in on our primaries: Concern trolls. Learn these words, love these words, and use them when these guys weigh in with their advice oh-so-constructively-meant.

Posted by scott | January 30, 2008 8:52 AM

There certainly IS a big Moment of Decision for American between Obama and Clinton. Why you and other political, tight-focus writers keep missing the boat on this is beyond me. But perhaps the problem is who you, personally, are: you can't see it.

Posted by E. | January 30, 2008 8:53 AM

I respect your opinion as always, Matt, but frankly that's just a bit too cynical and convoluted for my taste.

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 8:56 AM

In addition to what's been said, here are three things that probably appeal to said conservofans:

1. When was the last time that Democrats at victory rallies started chanting "USA...USA"?

2. In contrast to the two Stepford candidates, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Obama (and McCain) gives the appearance of thinking about questions and trying to answer them. Either he's authentic, or darned good at faking it.

3. The organizational team that he's put together is really impressive, particularly in contrast to what one can read about Clinton's group. The fact that he could go from nothing to a campaign that's arguably better organized than hers in a year is really amazing, and hopefully is something augurs well for an Obama presidency.

Posted by KevinF | January 30, 2008 8:57 AM

I will tell you why Americans of all political sides like Obama... Its one word...
Charater..
Clinton just doesn't have it.. Last nights sham and Billarys actions in SC showed me that...

Posted by Ann | January 30, 2008 8:59 AM

I will tell you why Americans of all political sides like Obama... Its one word...
Charater..
Clinton just doesn't have it.. Last nights sham and Billarys actions in SC showed me that...

Posted by Ann | January 30, 2008 9:00 AM

I will tell you why Americans of all political sides like Obama... Its one word...
Charater..
Clinton just doesn't have it.. Last nights sham and Billarys actions in SC showed me that...

Posted by Ann | January 30, 2008 9:00 AM

Good replies to Matt. But I also think Matt's original post was right, and (just as importantly) is something that Democrats need to hear right now.

I'm for Obama, because like tm, I think his unifying rhetoric makes a substantial difference at this juncture -- it isn't "merely" rhetorical. Also because, like the people JMS references, I don't want to be governed by perpetual War Room-style Clintonian spin, if I can avoid it.

But Matt is right that the morality play that Andy Sullivan and David Brooks (and many Daily Kos readers) are creating is a narrative that probably sets the Democrats up for a loss in Nov. One way to avoid that fate is to nominate Obama -- but failing that, we need to keep a a sense of proportion. Hillary is vastly better than any of the alternatives we've had for eight years, and I'd be happy to see her in office. (Though I do wish we could make Bill ambassador to Malawi and leave him there for the duration.)

Posted by Ted | January 30, 2008 9:00 AM

There's pretty much NO meaningful policy difference between Obama and Clinton- they're both status-quo centrists. (Obama has actually tried to run to Clinton's right on health care and Social Security, among other issues, but liberal Obamabots just stick their fingers in their ears and hum as loudly as they can when this is pointed out.) I'm all about who's the stronger general election candidate. My completely unsupported gut feeling is that Obama would match up better against Romney and Clinton against McCain, so apart from my disappointment at the failure of Edwards to get any traction I don't feel too bad about the Clinton - McCain matchup that seems to be in the cards.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | January 30, 2008 9:01 AM

OMG, I wish we'd grow up, fer crissakes. I'm an Edwards guy, I know my guy is going down, but all this freaking drama about either (1) Saintly Barack vs. corrupt, scheming Hillary or (2) Clinton against an unready, starry-eyed dreamer is bullshit. Clinton is not the Antichrist, and Barack Obama is not an empty suit. If we want an administration that changes the direction we've been going in dramatically, either one based on their skills and platforms would do the trick nicely and in a way that will generally please us, especially compared to the last 7 years. MY is right. Clouding the similarity of these two with fevered, frothy invocations of authenticity and demonizing the Other is an excellent way (and perhaps the only one) of dividing the Democratic Party and handing the pinheads the election. If Hillary or Barack isn't your personal cup of tea, I get that, but I wish we'd rein this personal stuff in for our own good.

Posted by scott | January 30, 2008 9:03 AM

It is not just those on the right who percieve a huge difference between Senators Clinton and Obama. There are those on the left like myself who believe that her divisive, combative, dishonest nature would hurt the democratic party and progressive causes more than any Republican in the Whitehouse could posibly hurt them. No matter how correct her beliefs and policy positions she would be nearly as big a gift to the right as W has been to us. He made it respectable to be a liberal and she would make it shamefull again.

Posted by Larry Geater | January 30, 2008 9:03 AM

I found Ross's silly fanboy piece about Brooks pretty dreadful, and I think you're right that if Hillary wins, Brooks will use it as evidence that the Democrats are corrupt, and that if Obama wins, they'll say the party corrupted him within a few weeks, but...I also think that Brooks will actually believe all of these things. I think he really does buy into the Obama/Kennedy piece that he wrote yesterday. Why would someone write something as awful as this unless meant it?

culture really does have rhythms. The respect for institutions that was prevalent during the early ’60s is prevalent with the young again today. The earnest industriousness that was common then is back today.

Brooks actually believes all this crap he writes, about how great the little proto-fascist "company kids" are, about how good, honest, God-fearing people are moving to the exurbs to get away from all the African bistros and Latvian films that are shoved in their faces in the old suburbs suburbs like Fairfax County and Metro West...all of it. He really does.

The key to understanding not only Brooks but also his fellow gasbags is realizing that they're sincere.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | January 30, 2008 9:05 AM

Though I do wish we could make Bill ambassador to Malawi and leave him there for the duration.

but we can't. a Clinton administration is going to be a circus: in ring #1, Hillary; in ring #2, Bill; in ring #3, the GOP. watch as they chase each other in circles for four years!

Posted by cleek | January 30, 2008 9:09 AM

Pundits are just like everyone else.

No, they're not. Certainly David Brooks isn't. He's a disingenuous weasel. Consistently.

Posted by ed | January 30, 2008 9:11 AM

"There are those on the left like myself who believe that her divisive, combative, dishonest nature would hurt the democratic party and progressive causes more than any Republican in the Whitehouse could posibly hurt them."

More than "fewer jobs, more wars" McCain?
More than "double Guantanamo" Romney?
More than Huckabee, who says the Constitution must conform to God's law?

This is the sort of demonization I remember well from 2000, when many of us were SO convinced that Gore was just some insincere, Internet-inventing, earth-tones hack that it really wouldn't make any difference if we voted for Nader, stayed home, or even voted for that nice guy Bush who talked about compassionate conservatism. Several trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands dead later, are we AGAIN so sure that there's no difference between the latest disfavored Democratic candidate and the other side? I really hope not.

Posted by scott | January 30, 2008 9:11 AM

John Edwards dropping out of the race. Hope to see him endorse Obama soon.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 30, 2008 9:11 AM

If Obama wins the primary, I assume that Obamafandom will rapidly wither away

Damn right. All those warm fuzzy feelings (of the mainstream cons) will evaporate overnight.

It is true that Obama has a genuine appeal to some Republicans (not to talk of Independents). But MY makes a good point. Hard core Republicans have a visceral hatred of the Clintons. The fact that Obama is taking on the Clinton machine makes such Republicans sympathetic to him. Based on my conversions with some cons, I gather that they see the fight against Clinton as an epic struggle between good and evil; kinda their version the LOTR with Clintons as the dark lord Sauron. Everyone elf or hobbit who joins in the fight is an ally. However if Obama comes out on top after Super Tuesday, I expect the narrative to change very fast.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 30, 2008 9:16 AM

from where I sit and what I read, arguably at a healthy distance from what I imagine is the 24/7 US TV coverage of this campaign, the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign are using nearly identical tactics and nearly identical talking points. Either one would be a boring, middle-of-the-road, compromising, president who (hopefully) would do less harm to America and the American image abroad than Bush and co. Neither of them is the next coming, or even terribly creative. HRC does the spin thing well and BHO knows his rhetorical flourishes. So what.

What I really want to know is why does the liberal establishment (or the 'upstart'-who-curries-favour-with-the-liberal-establishment-while-decrying-its-influence) think that the voters to impress are the centre-right? A real break with history, revolution or progressive action would be to appeal to (and mean it god damn it) the vast majority of Americans who can't afford healthcare, expensive schools, or even their mortgage payments. Sure Edwards gives it lip-service and Dean was briefly representing "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party", but why is socialist still a dirty word?

If we want real change in the states we need to rise up and take it. The right has defined the economic, political and social talking points that indicate success. Why do the dems keep using their definitions? I don't want a president conservatives like and I don't see why that sort of compromise (why hasn't anyone mentioned that compromise and unity are a nice way of saying triangulation?) is necessary. A brave, visionary break with conservative ideals, unabashedly supported with sound policy and examples of successful implementation (scandinavia anyone? Germany?) is what the States needs.

Gordon Brown for president.

Posted by Expat_UK | January 30, 2008 9:19 AM

We Obamafans may not see be a big difference with Hillary on the issues, but we do see a gaping void on ability to inspire, honesty, tone, baggage (or lack thereof), authenticity, and simple likability.

As a fellow Obama supporter, I agree-- and I think that that shit isn't really that big a deal in the end.

Look, we care about the government because it does stuff that affects people's lives. It's not a soap opera, it's not a morality play, it's not a popularity contest.

And the policies that Clinton and Obama advocate are just not radically different.

I prefer Obama on policy-- though I don't care for his Social Security rhetoric-- and I think he's more electable in the general election. But let's be grown ups. At the end of the day, Pres. Obama's America isn't radically different from Pres. H. Clinton's.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 30, 2008 9:21 AM

I'm completely with Matt on the main sentiment of the post: that the substantive differences between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are small, whereas the difference between either of them and McCain or Romney are very great.

Also, what scott said at 9:03am above. Whoever is the nominee, I get the shudders when people on the left start echoing the talking points and attacks from those on the right. They have a vast amount of ordure ready for whoever the Democratic candidate in the fall should be. No need to start flinging slop buckets at our own.

Posted by Andrew | January 30, 2008 9:22 AM

I think the big reason Republicans are warm to Obama is that his talk of reconciliation and political trancendence makes them believe they will not be held to account for the past decade. In other words, he's the only one who seems like he might not treat the Republicans like they have treated the Democrats my entire adult life.

I mean, if the farm were up for sale, I'd expect the livestock to hope for the vegetarian to buy the place, too.

Posted by Kiril | January 30, 2008 9:23 AM

Just wanted to second Expat's call for a more explicitly liberal political vision, which I agree hasn't been presented this year.

Posted by scott | January 30, 2008 9:25 AM

One way to avoid that fate is to nominate Obama -- but failing that, we need to keep a a sense of proportion. Hillary is vastly better than any of the alternatives we've had for eight years, and I'd be happy to see her in office.

Wow. Wonders never cease. A reasonable Obama fan. Thanks!

(Sorry, I know that's a bit snarky. But you have to admit, it does seem like 99% of Obama fans on Matt's site end their posts with the inevitable "If Obama's not the nominee I'm voting for John McCain and a century of warfare.").

Posted by Jasper | January 30, 2008 9:26 AM

You are right about why the conservative pundits are praising Obama.
They all parrot the same talking points.
however, why should the democrats even care what they think. It is our primary and the ones we should concern ourselves with are the independents and moderate disillusioned republicans. Who can appeal to them.
We have to stop letting the conservatives set the agenda, the direction or influence how we vote.
They are playing strategy games. We do it too.
And we really need to stop thinking about the republican attack machine boogeyman. We have to stop voting and thinking in fear. Grow a spine and blow them off. Anyone knows that Kerry lost from not responding rather than they were so big and bad.

Posted by vwcat | January 30, 2008 9:27 AM

Jasper, after reading your comments last night on this blog you have a lot of nerve accusing others of being irrational. Your snarkiness and naivete seem to know no bounds, dude.

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 9:30 AM

I think it is sad and unfortunate Matthew must denigrate conservative supporters of Obama in order to boost Hillary. Conservatives support Obama for the same reason everyone else does.

They see him as a charasmatic, smart, transcendent figure who promises unity and post-partisanship in a divisive world. This is an all important difference which we all hunger for.

Posted by TLM | January 30, 2008 9:31 AM

A little bit off topic. Once Clinton wins the nomination, I think that she should pick Obama as her VP so that we can still keep independents from embacing McCain. With McCain looking to be the nominee, getting liberal and moderate republicans to our side will be a lost cause. I know that they despise each other but Kennedy.

Posted by MGJ | January 30, 2008 9:31 AM

why should the democrats even care what they think

The point is that if their praise for Obama has more to do with their disdain for Hillary, then if Obama should win they would quickly find lots of things about him to dislike.

I agree with Matt's take wrt the gasbags like Brooks. The same kind of thinking doesn't apply to normal Republicans, if they in fact do like Obama better (I've heard lots of anecdotes that this is the case).

Posted by Jim W | January 30, 2008 9:32 AM

Clinton makes some Republicans wet themselves.
They were all for an imperial presidency as long as it was a Republican in the White House. How many investigations do you think the Clinton Justice Department might undertake?

Posted by fear | January 30, 2008 9:32 AM

I think that there is some element of race consciousness involved in the perception by so many Obama fans that he is inspiring and appeals to the best of us. This is a typical reaction of the non-prejudiced whites when they see a non-white person in a position that the minorities do not normally hold. Obviously, there is anything wrong with such an attitude, but I think that it is a mistake to use such a perception as a significant factor in making a decision on the candidate to support.

Posted by gregor | January 30, 2008 9:36 AM

Please disregard the last sentence or whatever you want to call it. I meant to delete it. This goes to show that commenting on blog while at work is not always a good idea.:)

Posted by MGJ | January 30, 2008 9:36 AM

Please disregard the last sentence or whatever you want to call it. I meant to delete it. This goes to show that commenting on blog while at work is not always a good idea.:)

Posted by MGJ | January 30, 2008 9:36 AM

Edwards is gone and the choice will be Clinton vs Obama. I think Obama's positions are marginally better; his style is a plus and Clinton's a minus. The dog whistle that I can't quite hear seems to attract people that impress me, all of which means its Hillary in a walk.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 30, 2008 9:39 AM

Like other commenters above, I think Matthew's missing the appeal of Obama to rightwingers. Matthew is simply wrong when he says that "there are differences between the two of them, but in the scheme of things they're either small differences or fuzzy ones, not the gaping void that many on the right seem to perceive". There are huge differences between the two in the types of rhetoric they use and arguments they make - even if the policy differences are slight. For a lot of people, rhetoric and arguments are important things. Indeed, you can see that not only on the right, but also on the left where you had some leftwingers believe that Obama isn't partisan enough.

Matthew is making the common wonk fallacy that people vote on policy and issues. A lot of folks find other characteristics more important than policy and issues. And they may find Obama to be better on those characteristics than Hillary. (The same goes, BTW, for McCain - where a lot of people seem to be attracted to him based on characteristics other than policy.)

Posted by Al | January 30, 2008 9:40 AM

I think that there is some element of race consciousness involved in the perception by so many Obama fans that he is inspiring and appeals to the best of us.

Another weird thing is the fact that white liberals think, just because Obama is black, that he was the only major candidate who opposed the Iraq war.
Weird.

Posted by Jim W | January 30, 2008 9:40 AM

I'd say "gregor" nails it...

Posted by RKU | January 30, 2008 9:43 AM

I wrote the same thing yesterday. You're just way off base. When you look at David Brooks after an Obama event, it's obvious that he's on the verge of tears. William Bennet seems to glow with admiration. This isn't feigned, or thought carefully through, and it is lazy to think that EVERYTHING a class of persons does is for a well defined reason. Disdain for the Clintons is certainly part of the (elite pundint) conservative admiration for Obama. But that's just not it.

Posted by Matt | January 30, 2008 9:46 AM

Edwards out.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 30, 2008 9:48 AM

I'm telling you, this Obamania from conservatives, no matter how tepid their feelings, is due mainly towards realism and the Clinton hatred. Conservatives know this election is finished. They know they haven't found a candidate who has a chance of winning. The polls show this. Everyone knows this. That is why the Republicans were pining for a darkhorse candidate to lead them to victory, and why they were so upset that their darkhorse turned out to be Thompson. No pro-war candidate can win. And that's all they've got. So they want desperately to keep the Clintons out of power. Obama is the lesser of two evils.

Posted by freddiemac | January 30, 2008 9:51 AM

Off topic: Any truth to the speculation that McCain would name Huckabee as his VP if nominated?

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 9:54 AM

Re Edwards dropping out: Fuck! Now I have to pick between the politics of perky uplift and DLC-style patient triangulation. Super. And yet I'm still able to discern that either would be better than the pinhead alternative....funny how that works.........

Posted by scott | January 30, 2008 9:56 AM

I agree with all three sides of the argument above:

(a) it's an easy way to denigrate Clinton;

(b) they (repugs) wish they had a candidate like Obama;

(c) if he wins the nomination, they will trash him just like HRC.

Remember, sometimes "all of the above" is the right answer.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 30, 2008 9:58 AM

MY,

Please dispense with the 'there's no difference' between Obama/Clinton argument. Didn't we learn from Bush/Gore 2000 that the cone of influence of a President is vast? Obama/Clinton may have small differences in policy proposals. But the differences in their responses to events, multiplied by more events and responses and time, will be large.

Posted by Adi | January 30, 2008 10:00 AM

Jasper, after reading your comments last night on this blog you have a lot of nerve accusing others of being irrational. Your snarkiness and naivete seem to know no bounds, dude.

Sorry, dude, but I haven't once varied from my stated intention to vote for Obama should he win the nomination. I'll repeat it again: I will enthusiastically support his candidacy over McCain's if he's our standard bearer. I just wish more Obama fans displayed a similar maturity with respect to the general election.

A little bit off topic. Once Clinton wins the nomination, I think that she should pick Obama as her VP so that we can still keep independents from embacing McCain.

I agree. I don't know if Obama would accept, but I think he'd be wise to do so.

Edwards is out, by the way. And he's not endorsing. This is an enormous boost for Hillary. Edwards -- slick millionaire lawyer that he is -- is no fool. He's done exactly what the Clintons would want by both dropping out before Tuesday (everybody knows he pulls more votes from Hillary than Barack) and by refraining from endorsing Obama. He can't possibly think Hillary would give him the VP slot, but perhaps he's angling for the attorney generalship. I think at the end of the day Edwards's decision is eminently sensible and justifiable, no matter the political consequences. It's been pretty clear for a while now we essentially have a two person race for the nomination, and voters deserve a clear, unmuddied choice between the two. Let's let the chips fall where they may. If my analysis is wrong and those chips fall in Obama's favor, I'm fine with that, and will do my bit to help him beat the Republican.

Posted by Jasper | January 30, 2008 10:04 AM

Though I do wish we could make Bill ambassador to Malawi and leave him there for the duration.

Except the population would double in a few years as the place became overrun with little Bills. And he would probably con them into making him dictator for life. Do we really wish that for the poor people of Malawi?

Posted by Captain Noble | January 30, 2008 10:16 AM

To echo what others have said: the fact that there isn't much difference between them from an on-paper wonk perspective doesn't mean there aren't HUGE differences in personal style and approach to governing that would in turn lead to huge and significant differences between their administrations.

I like both from a pure policy perspective, but I very very very much do NOT want a return to the slash-and-burn self-obsessed Clinton soap opera style of governance, which is exactly what the nation doesn't need at this point in history.

Posted by John | January 30, 2008 10:20 AM

"there's just no justification for viewing the Obama/Clinton choice as some kind of night and day Moment of Decision for America..."

WRONG-O! And I think you probably mis-typed, and you do realize that there's more to candidate and a person than their policy positions, so I won't beat the dead horse that's probably being pummeled in the above comments that I haven't read.

Posted by Nick | January 30, 2008 10:21 AM

Matthew keeps referring to the small policy differences between Hillary and Obama, but I agree with many of the posters here that the real difference is they way they lead.
In our ADD type political discourse, we forget the multiple "yuck" moments that have popped up in the Clinton campaign that have given us foreshadowing of what a Clinton presidency will bring about. The policy differences may be small, but are we really silly enough to think another Clinton vs. Right Wing cage match will bring any significant changes?
Political campaigns should be tough because Senators have to properly defend the prior stands they have taken on issues, not because they have to deflect distortions, lies and race-baiting. To defend the status-quo of campaign tactics over substance and ethical standards is to reduce the choosing our President to no more than a reality TV game show. It all in who has the best tactics, right?

Posted by Rontrel Johnson | January 30, 2008 10:21 AM

Do I think Sen Clinton would hurt liberal causes-

"More than "fewer jobs, more wars" McCain?"
"More than "double Guantanamo" Romney?"
"More than Huckabee, who says the Constitution must conform to God's law?"

You bet. They can get their policies enacted but they cannot make us look bad in the way that Clintonian drama will. I am not arguing that she will enact policies that are worse than theirs. I am arguing that she will fritter away an oportunity to get something done and in the process make our side look so bad that we will look fondly back on president Carter. He was a good likeable person with all the right policy positions but his inability to get things done led to Regan. How much more poopular would Regan have been and how much more popular the positions he took would be if Carter had been personaly unlikable and blind to ethical apperances as well!

Posted by Larry Geater | January 30, 2008 10:22 AM

everybody knows he pulls more votes from Hillary than Barack-Jasper

Any evidence to back up this claim? If everybody knows what you know, why are the people on the TV telling me that Edwards' dropping out could be a boon to Obama?

I would venture to guess that it is possible that Edwards' supporters are among the "Clinton haters" that you find so morally reprehensible, and they will gladly move to Obama sooner than they'll move to Billary. This is, of course, a guess. But at least I'm not passing it off as "everybody knows" pseudo-fact as you are. Give it a rest.

By the way, ZERO chance that Obama is a VP for Clinton. They really do hate each other now, and Obama could simply wait 4 to 8 years to run again after acquiring more of that oh-so-essential "experience" in Washington that Clintonistas are so enamored of. And there's no way Hillary or Bill will allow Obama to steal their spotlight by having him tag along. They're too spiteful and narcissistic for that.

Posted by tinisoli | January 30, 2008 10:22 AM

Jasper is fond of talking out of his ass and making wildly unsubstantiated claims. Pay him no mind.

Posted by Marc Harman | January 30, 2008 10:30 AM

I would venture to guess that it is possible that Edwards' supporters are among the "Clinton haters" that you find so morally reprehensible, and they will gladly move to Obama sooner than they'll move to Billary.

And I would venture to guess that Edwards's voters have mostly been downscale, white, non-college educated, economically harder pressed moderate Democrats. That sure looks to me like more of a Clinton voter than an Obama voter. I guess we'll find out next week.

Posted by Jasper | January 30, 2008 10:49 AM

Matt -

- You should stop digging, it's embarrassing to watch. These two posts reveal you as completely out of touch with conservatives (moderate or otherwise), particularly those who support Obama. Which leads into...

- Obama and Clinton are only close superficially - yes I mean issues are superficial. 90% of what a president encounters in office is either unexpected or has nothing to do with passing legislation.

Posted by Steve C | January 30, 2008 10:50 AM

Matt: Keep up the 'howler' blogging. Dem's won't win the whitehouse without some understanding this important issue.

Posted by Chuck | January 30, 2008 10:51 AM

LBJ and JKF hated each other but they still ran on the same ticket. I think that it is a good idea to have them on the same ticket. Besides Hillary has more experience than Obama but with his background in community organizing and being a gifted politician (look at the speed at which his career rose) this will help the democrats. I am very impressed by the fact that this guy came from nowhere and built up a grassroots organization and giving Clinton the run for her money. For that reason I think that he will be an asset.

Posted by MGJ | January 30, 2008 10:54 AM

LBJ and JKF hated each other but they still ran on the same ticket. I think that it is a good idea to have them on the same ticket. Besides Hillary has more experience than Obama but with his background in community organizing and being a gifted politician (look at the speed at which his career rose) this will help the democrats. I am very impressed by the fact that this guy came from nowhere and built up a grassroots organization and giving Clinton the run for her money. For that reason I think that he will be an asset.

Posted by MGJ | January 30, 2008 10:54 AM

There you go again, making politicians no more than hangers on which can be draped issues and positions.

So astute I thought it needed repeating. One thing I've learned over the past four years is that Democrats have even less understanding of character & narrative than GOPers, though, and you just can't teach literalists why those things are important.

Posted by latts | January 30, 2008 10:56 AM

Perfectly said, latts.

One thing the world could use less of is whining from self-righteous commentators that people don't pay enough attention to "the issues", because those are what's REALLY important.

They're not nearly as important as the skill with which you can use the bully pulpit, for example. Or how you make decisions about using military force.

Posted by Steve C | January 30, 2008 11:03 AM

"there's just no justification for viewing the Obama/Clinton choice as some kind of night and day Moment of Decision for America."

Of course it's not a Moment of Decision for America. But it is such a moment for Democrats. A Democratic Party that nominates Obama is saying something very different to the country and to itself than a party that nominates Hillary Clinton.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 30, 2008 11:06 AM

I think one decisive reason to favor Obama, as a Rawlsian liberal as opposed to Matt's more or less crass utiliarianism, is that Obama is actually concerned with re-shaping and fixing a dysfunctional deliberative democratic public culture.

The way in which we reach policy decisions in this country is as big a problem as any particular policy decision. In fact, the two are intertwined and interrelated. Obama at least sees the problem, and seeing that it is a problem is, at the very least, the first step to trying to fix it.

And finally, it seems obvious from his legislative record that Obama is tamping down his liberalism at bit (or even dramatically). I think there is a strong possibility he will govern more left than he is currently running (perhaps for political reasons, but also probably due to his vision of the process).

How likely is it that Clinton will govern to the left of where she campaigns? Now consider how likely that it is that Clinton will govern to the RIGHT of where she is, particularly on foreign policy?

In other words, where do the candidates instincts lie?

Posted by PTS | January 30, 2008 11:28 AM

gee, a lot of these personality, trust, and character arguments being thrown out as reasons to support obama sound to me a hell of a lot like the same reasons people voted for bush. and yes that is what i said. people are voting for obama because they like him. that's the same shit people said about bush.

steve c above chides democrats because they have failed for so long to see the importance of personality and narrative in elections, and that clinton supporters fail to recognize this at their own peril.

my question is then what the f*ck is it that obama is claiming to transcend??? you can't have it both ways! if the old style politics that obama claims to repudiate was based on personality and character, then YOU CANNOT APPEAL TO THOSE THINGS AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR CANDIDATES APPEAL WITHOUT BEING DUPLICITOUS OR NAIVE.

i am a former edwards supporter who is strongly for clinton for a lot of reasons, but largely because so many obama supporters sound just like ron paul supporters only with the names changed. the "savior" rhetoric is exactly the same.

Posted by english teacher | January 30, 2008 11:28 AM

english teacher:

do you teach english as a second language in some indonesian kampung?

also: do you aspire to be ee cummings?

Posted by Wallace | January 30, 2008 11:50 AM

While I applaud PTS for some of his Rawlsian insights (I haven't thought about the "veil of ignorance" in a while!), I'm a little concerned about where his argument leads. I wouldn't dismiss as quickly as he does where the candidates stand on specific issues and how they've actually campaigned on them for a very vague and unformed inquiry into where their "instincts" lie. I'm particularly troubled by the idea that we should be reassured that Obama will actually be more liberal than he's campaigned but that we should be concerned that HRC will be more conservative. Once you move away from what the candidates have actually said and done to explaining away what they "really" meant, you're sinking into an unpleasant little meta-swamp with no firm ground to stand on and evaluate anything.

Posted by scott | January 30, 2008 11:57 AM

i am a former edwards supporter who is strongly for clinton for a lot of reasons, but largely because so many obama supporters sound just like ron paul supporters only with the names changed. the "savior" rhetoric is exactly the same.

Ah, I see. So the problem with Obama is not the man himself but the fact that a) his supporters actually like him a lot and b) you've managed to cobble together some kind of stereotypical Obamabot in your mind who is so altogether unpleasant that you refuse to support the candidate. Brilliant.

Posted by tinisoli | January 30, 2008 11:57 AM

'my question is then what the f*ck is it that obama is claiming to transcend??'

The 'divisiveness' of the 90's!!!!!!!

/snark

Posted by willyjsimmons | January 30, 2008 12:04 PM

it is easy to cobble together stereotypical obamabots! they are just like paulbots - they fly off the handle and don't listen to what people are actually saying.

i have said repeatedly and will repeat it again for your benefit here, although i know you have seen me post this sentiment: I WILL GLADLY SUPPORT OBAMA IN THE GENERAL IF HE IS THE NOMINEE. i do not think he is the best nominee compared to clinton. no way. no magical unity movement for me, thank you very much. i want a fighter. i want clinton.

Posted by english teacher | January 30, 2008 12:26 PM

Lots of white people want Obama to win so they can tell blacks that his victory proves it's time to end affirmative action and all this whining about racism. Not surprisingly, lots of black people aren't crazy about that, but when push comes to shove, racial loyalty drives black voters even if they are worried about the consequences of a black becoming President.

(Also,it's highly unlikely that Obama becoming President would actually lead to less quotas, as people like Stuart Taylor of the Atlantic hope -- quotas exist not because of racism per se, but because of minority statistical underperformance, which is extremely stable.)

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 30, 2008 12:31 PM

English Teacher

If you want a fighter who can win you should be backing Obama. The Clintons are loud, biligernt and combative, but those are not the halmarks of a champion. They are the halmarks of a bar room bully. Look at the fight between the campeigns over the issues of race. No matter how you feel about who was right or wrong, you have to admit that in the court of public opinion Obama won without even looking like he was fighting. He will be able to do the same thing to the GOP nominee. The Clintons always look like they are fighting feircely. Obama wins the fight while looking like he is not even engaging in it.

Posted by Larry Geater | January 30, 2008 12:34 PM

larry,

no offense, but i don't have to "admit" a goddam thing. i agree with maxine waters comments from yesterday: the race hoopla was a media driven bullshit story. the fact that so many obama people swallowed it is yet another reason for me to see the man and his supporters as too willing or too naive to recognize the media frames that have been used against clinton. this will not suffice, in my opinion. obama, if he really were an agent of change and unity, would be condemning the past fifteen years of falsehoods and distortions that have been levelled against democrats, even if that meant sticking up for the clintons. that would be truly transcendent, yet he does not do it.

Posted by english teacher | January 30, 2008 12:51 PM

Has anyone else noticed that Obama's rhetorical style is awfully similar to the "great" Republican presidents? He talks about faith in the individual as the solution to our problems, he talks about the empowerment of the individual, etc.

He typically does NOT talk about getting the government involved, or about specific policy solutions, or the problems our society faces.

Much like Reagan and W, his style is characteristically sunny, with a huge placed faith in the power of the individual. He doesn't sound like a Democrat, and I think that's a huge reason why Republicans are so enthusiastic about him.

In other words, what I think people here are missing is that Obama is speaking the code language of the Right; he's using some of the same dog whistles as they are, and that's why Republicans are responding.

Whether that's ingenious on his part, or a sellout, I have no idea.

Posted by Wowsas | January 30, 2008 12:58 PM

So, english teacher, you're now quoting and agreeing with Maxine Waters, named one of the most corrupt members of Congress by the non partisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics? Who's next? Alcee Hastings or James Traficant? Cynthia McKinney on race relations?

Are you some sort of moron?

Posted by Larry Burns | January 30, 2008 1:28 PM

My intent is not to add to the already long list of rather brutal attacks between Hillary and Obama supporters, but to demonstrate to Matthew how this election may very well be a major turning point in Democratic Party history:

Imagine a scenario where Hillary wins the nomination with a divided convention, and let's assume that McCain keeps on winning. There are now quite a few Republicans in winnable districts retiring from public service, creating the possibility that not only will Democrats win the White House, they could claim everything with a veto-proof majority (a stretch, but still possible).

If Hillary ran against McCain, there's very little chance that the Democratic Party expands its base to encompass Democrats running in those districts. Dems may win the race, but there will be no transformative political moment. She will likely emerge with a slim plurality and carry with her one or two extra seats. As a result, Republicans will be empowered to continue obstructing any legislation (anything that raises taxes) for as long as possible so that they can run someone untainted by Bush in 2012.

Obama offers the chance (although the odds are unknown) of actually getting Republicans to cross lines. He could help win enough Red State Congressional seats to make the Democratic majority in Congress operative on most of the major issues that the Party so desperately wants to do something about.

I think it's this possibility that sets Obama's candidacy apart from all others. It's why this is, actually, an important moment to choose change over Hillary.

Posted by Braden | January 30, 2008 1:49 PM

My intent is not to add to the already long list of rather brutal attacks between Hillary and Obama supporters, but to demonstrate to Matthew how this election may very well be a major turning point in Democratic Party history:

Imagine a scenario where Hillary wins the nomination with a divided convention, and let's assume that McCain keeps on winning. There are now quite a few Republicans in winnable districts retiring from public service, creating the possibility that not only will Democrats win the White House, they could claim everything with a veto-proof majority (a stretch, but still possible).

If Hillary ran against McCain, there's very little chance that the Democratic Party expands its base to encompass Democrats running in those districts. Dems may win the race, but there will be no transformative political moment. She will likely emerge with a slim plurality and carry with her one or two extra seats. As a result, Republicans will be empowered to continue obstructing any legislation (anything that raises taxes) for as long as possible so that they can run someone untainted by Bush in 2012.

Obama offers the chance (although the odds are unknown) of actually getting Republicans to cross lines. He could help win enough Red State Congressional seats to make the Democratic majority in Congress operative on most of the major issues that the Party so desperately wants to do something about.

I think it's this possibility that sets Obama's candidacy apart from all others. It's why this is, actually, an important moment to choose change over Hillary.

Posted by Braden | January 30, 2008 1:51 PM

Wowsas,

It's true that Obama is more optimistic in tone than Hillary or other candidates, but it is also true that Ronald Reagan never would've believed (let alone said publicly) that gays ought be be treated as equals, that race ought not to be a major issue, or that a preemptive war was "dumb" from the start. It is obviously possible that Barack is totally full of shit, but there's very little evidence that this is the case. With Hillary, on the other hand, there is ample evidence that much of what she and her husband say is utter bullshit.

English teacher and others seem to conflate or confuse the character-driven elections of George Bush and Ronald Reagan with the hypothetical election of Obama, but this is based on a false premise: that any candidate who is actually liked by the electorate is inevitably someone who shouldn't be liked. This false premise then yields a false choice: either electing an unlikable Clinton who would be a good president or electing a likable Obama who would be a bad president. This is simply a false choice. And it is moronic to assume that just because George Bush was more likable than Gore in 2000 and turned out to be the worst president ever, that Obama will also turn out to be a bad president.

Posted by tinisoli | January 30, 2008 1:52 PM

A Clinton presidency would be a step backwards symbolically and a continuation of the quasi-dynastic rule we've had since GHW Bush. Also, the role of Bill in the presidency is an unknown quantity and is potentially troubling, since he could wield a lot of unelected power. Also, the right wing and the press would go nuts trying to relive the 90's and to find new scandals.

These are all important differences between Clinton and Obama.

Posted by erm | January 30, 2008 1:52 PM

larry i don't think i used any kind of language that disparaged you or your intelligence. i didn't use any kind of juvenile taunt.

please recognize that you are giving the lie to the "politics of transcendence" by using insults. obama would be a lot more credible if his supporters didn't seem so eager to insult members of (supposedly) their own party for critiquing the media. makes it kind of hard to believe the daley backed rezko funded poker playing buddy is about anything other than politics as usual when you act like that.

Posted by english teacher | January 30, 2008 2:01 PM

tinsoli:

again with the insults. where did i say that obama would be a bad president? i never said that. i said i think clinton would be much better. that post is a long way for you to go to argue against something i never said just to call me a "moron". way to transcend politics as usual.

Posted by english teacher | January 30, 2008 2:05 PM

english patient:

way to divert from the issue. spoken like a true clintonian pro. juvenile or not, i'm not the fool (that would be you) quoting maxine waters, a renowned crooked politician as well as a major supporter of your mother-surrogate, Hillary. you and your ee cummings imitation crack me up.

Posted by Larry Burns | January 30, 2008 3:09 PM

Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 was not character driven, it was policy driven. Neither the Obama campaign or his supporters seem to have grasped this yet.

Posted by learn some history | January 30, 2008 3:15 PM

English teacher

Your response that the race thing was a bs story is no more to the point of who won the fight in the court of public opinion than the color of the combatants trunks is to who won the last heavy weight championship.

On the race issue. Obama never brought it up, and when he was asked about it he said that he did not think the Clintons were being racist but in such a manner that did not persuade those who thought they were to change their minds. He took the high road rhetoricaly while in fact woopin' them on this issue.

On the Regan thing what got to the clintons was not that he had said Regan was an effective politician. It was that he in the same interview gave a negative assement of President Clintons effectiveness. The former president could not cry foul without looking like a cry baby so they attaced him for praising Regan. Only it turns out they have done so also. This made them look disingenuous. Woopin' #2.

He keeps his tone civil while delivering rhetorical body blows that the Clinton team is not good enough to counter. He is drinking their milkshake while looking inocent. They cannot even look inocent when they are!

Note - there are two Larrys posting here I am the one that has not called you a moron.

Posted by Larry Geater | January 30, 2008 3:23 PM

ET (English Teacher)

The Clinton race-baiting was NOT media created. Not when the BET owner was sent out to comment about Obama's drug past indirectly, nor when Big Bill spoke about Jesse Jackson winning So Carol.

So there's a great example of the CLintons themselves in their own words, not being 'framed' this way or that.

They're sluggers, no doubt. But don't pretend Obama is similar in that respect.

Plus I would just say that personality has always mattered to voters and always will. Just because W was likeable doesn't mean that we should avoid that as a category in choosing our candidate. After all, circumstances change, campaign promises are just that - so our intuitions of personalities are all we really have, along with past behaviors. So, Obama wins those fights, in my view.

Clinton seems really Wrong to me, deeply flawed. She radiates it. And I've never voted Republican. I voted Clinton in 92. But there's something missing in her. And I don't see why you trust her. She's too expedient. She wants TWO terms... and she can't afford to look weak. Only Nixon could go to China, and Hillary never could.

Posted by sloopy | January 30, 2008 3:36 PM

Addendum:

ET - The Clinton race-baiting was certainly amplified, but it was not created by the media.

Plus, there was a sense that even Democratic officials had been waiting in some cases years to speak out. They have been fed up.

So there was some piling up, but it was like a ref who sees a foul in the first quarter (the 90s) who misses the call, then is extra touchy in the fourth (now). Shitty analogy, but it makes my point, I think.

Posted by sloopy | January 30, 2008 3:42 PM

ET:

Here is the definitive (from what I know) takedown of Hillary's deceptions. It's Hilzoys list of her lies.

Enjoy. Then get back to MY's hinterlands.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/lies-and-democr.html