"Incremental" method vs. "Inspirational" method
I had an interesting discussion with my sister last night about Obama and Clinton. She's an Obama supporter. Out of that, and an article posted by mar1nka, I came up with the following thoughts (based on an email to my sister).
I think this quote sums up what I see as the main difference between Clinton and Obama, and why, while the decision was really, really close and difficult for me (and continues to keep me thinking), I think I will go with Clinton. I'm not trying to change your mind, but trying to offer this as a good way to understand where our differences lie.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_packer?currentPage=1
"The alternatives facing Democratic voters have been characterized variously as a choice between experience and change, between an insider and an outsider, and between two firsts-a woman and a black man. But perhaps the most important difference between these two politicians-whose policy views, after all, are almost indistinguishable-lies in their rival conceptions of the Presidency. Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government. Clinton presents politics as the art of the possible, with change coming incrementally through good governance, a skill that she has honed in her career as advocate, First Lady, and senator. This is the real meaning of the remark she made during one of the New Hampshire debates: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do-the President before had not even tried-but it took a President to get it done.”"
Okay, now back to me. I realize that no Obama supporter could possibly read the above quote and conclude anything but that Obama's far-reaching, inspirational message of reconciliation is the better of the two. I understand this sentiment. Obama is genuinely inspiring to you and me (and lots of others) and I can honestly see why so many people fall in love with him.
He has this effect on some Democrats, and a few others, but he most definitely will not have this effect on everyone - hard core Republicans and some independents will not like him. I know it's hard to imagine anyone not liking him, but the Trent Lott-types of Congress and beyond will not like him any more than Clinton. There's a false dichotomy in saying that because Clinton will have some serious problems with her past, that Obama will magically be able to do whatever he wants as President.
Now, there is some truth to the fact that Clinton faces a very tough election if nominated and a lot of opposition from day one in the White House. I think she's tough enough to handle it and with a good campaign and lots of support from Democrats, she can win the election. Obama might honestly win the election a little more easily, but we don't really know what kind of Republican bullshit will be used against him, whereas our bullshit detectors for Clinton have a long history.
My main reason for going with Clinton, however, is that I think she would be a better President. Not that Obama would be a bad one, but as the quote from the article says, Clinton is able to set lots of smaller goals and achieve them. When I saw her and Bill in the last week, both mentioned all sorts of very specific programs meant to do things like lower student loan rates, deal with the mortgage crisis, give healthcare to veterans, etc. She also has the big plans of phasing out of Iraq and getting healthcare for everyone, but these plans are also fairly specific. I don't think any Democratic President will be able to accomplish all of these goals, given opposition and the real difficulties involved (especially in getting out of Iraq without completely fucking up the entire region, which is going to be way more difficult than anyone seems to be admitting).
Clinton's history, experience, "insider" status and even the "Clinton dynasty" are bad in some respects. I really don't like the idea of having a Clinton or a Bush in the White House for 20 years. On the other hand, her connections are exactly what you actually need in Washington to get things done and we obviously need to get a lot of things done in this country to repair the damage done by the Bush administration.
Now, this concept of "being able to get things done" is not as flashy or as sexy as Obama's genuinely inspirational speeches. He just might be able to inspire most Americans to move the country in a different direction. But he doesn't need to be President to do that. Beth and I were discussing the other night that Obama is like a shiny new sports car and Clinton is like a Volvo ("boxy but good"). Clinton may not have Obama's inspiration and excitement, but I think she has what it takes to make a real, specific differences. Not that Obama can't do some of that, but I think our country needs more than inspiration right now. We need a boring old President that can work within the system to change it.
So there you have it. I fully expect that we still disagree. I feel like I understand why Obama is your candidate, but I hope to have made clear why I like Clintion. Fundamentally, I think Clinton and Obama supporters have different conceptions of how Democrats' values can be put into place: the "incremental" model vs. the "inspirational" model. I realize I probably sound like a chode for saying we don't need inspiration. Maybe I'm just a cynical old man. Well, we do need inspiration like Obama's, which need not come from the President. But even more we need a President with the ability to move us forward in real increments and I'm more confident that Clinton can do that through the art of politics than Obama can through inspiration. I might be wrong, though. :)
I think this quote sums up what I see as the main difference between Clinton and Obama, and why, while the decision was really, really close and difficult for me (and continues to keep me thinking), I think I will go with Clinton. I'm not trying to change your mind, but trying to offer this as a good way to understand where our differences lie.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_packer?currentPage=1
"The alternatives facing Democratic voters have been characterized variously as a choice between experience and change, between an insider and an outsider, and between two firsts-a woman and a black man. But perhaps the most important difference between these two politicians-whose policy views, after all, are almost indistinguishable-lies in their rival conceptions of the Presidency. Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government. Clinton presents politics as the art of the possible, with change coming incrementally through good governance, a skill that she has honed in her career as advocate, First Lady, and senator. This is the real meaning of the remark she made during one of the New Hampshire debates: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do-the President before had not even tried-but it took a President to get it done.”"
Okay, now back to me. I realize that no Obama supporter could possibly read the above quote and conclude anything but that Obama's far-reaching, inspirational message of reconciliation is the better of the two. I understand this sentiment. Obama is genuinely inspiring to you and me (and lots of others) and I can honestly see why so many people fall in love with him.
He has this effect on some Democrats, and a few others, but he most definitely will not have this effect on everyone - hard core Republicans and some independents will not like him. I know it's hard to imagine anyone not liking him, but the Trent Lott-types of Congress and beyond will not like him any more than Clinton. There's a false dichotomy in saying that because Clinton will have some serious problems with her past, that Obama will magically be able to do whatever he wants as President.
Now, there is some truth to the fact that Clinton faces a very tough election if nominated and a lot of opposition from day one in the White House. I think she's tough enough to handle it and with a good campaign and lots of support from Democrats, she can win the election. Obama might honestly win the election a little more easily, but we don't really know what kind of Republican bullshit will be used against him, whereas our bullshit detectors for Clinton have a long history.
My main reason for going with Clinton, however, is that I think she would be a better President. Not that Obama would be a bad one, but as the quote from the article says, Clinton is able to set lots of smaller goals and achieve them. When I saw her and Bill in the last week, both mentioned all sorts of very specific programs meant to do things like lower student loan rates, deal with the mortgage crisis, give healthcare to veterans, etc. She also has the big plans of phasing out of Iraq and getting healthcare for everyone, but these plans are also fairly specific. I don't think any Democratic President will be able to accomplish all of these goals, given opposition and the real difficulties involved (especially in getting out of Iraq without completely fucking up the entire region, which is going to be way more difficult than anyone seems to be admitting).
Clinton's history, experience, "insider" status and even the "Clinton dynasty" are bad in some respects. I really don't like the idea of having a Clinton or a Bush in the White House for 20 years. On the other hand, her connections are exactly what you actually need in Washington to get things done and we obviously need to get a lot of things done in this country to repair the damage done by the Bush administration.
Now, this concept of "being able to get things done" is not as flashy or as sexy as Obama's genuinely inspirational speeches. He just might be able to inspire most Americans to move the country in a different direction. But he doesn't need to be President to do that. Beth and I were discussing the other night that Obama is like a shiny new sports car and Clinton is like a Volvo ("boxy but good"). Clinton may not have Obama's inspiration and excitement, but I think she has what it takes to make a real, specific differences. Not that Obama can't do some of that, but I think our country needs more than inspiration right now. We need a boring old President that can work within the system to change it.
So there you have it. I fully expect that we still disagree. I feel like I understand why Obama is your candidate, but I hope to have made clear why I like Clintion. Fundamentally, I think Clinton and Obama supporters have different conceptions of how Democrats' values can be put into place: the "incremental" model vs. the "inspirational" model. I realize I probably sound like a chode for saying we don't need inspiration. Maybe I'm just a cynical old man. Well, we do need inspiration like Obama's, which need not come from the President. But even more we need a President with the ability to move us forward in real increments and I'm more confident that Clinton can do that through the art of politics than Obama can through inspiration. I might be wrong, though. :)