Don’t be silly. Every candidate tries to deny the presidency to every other candidate. Don’t look for hidden meanings where there are none.

You’re right about this one. Obama is not only selling dreamy messages, he is playing low-ball politics. Obama is happy to be the primary beneficiary of the right-wing anti-Hillary attack machine. To serve his purpose, he continually reminds us of Hillary’s supposed “baggage” — baggage that was largely a fabrication of the right wing.

Here is what I said about it on my blog today: http://evanrud.typepad.com/weblog/2008/02/barack-attack.html

We are in the end game of the right-wing strategy to deny Hillary the presidency. And Barack Obama has willingly emerged as their primary tool.

What will happen when she is out of the way and they turn their weapons on him?

Best wishes,
Evan

“But keep in mind – if you look for example – at how I’ve conducted this campaign – I started from scratch, and was up against an operation that had been built over the course of 20 years by a former president, with the bulk of the Democratic establishment on their side. And after setting up a hundred-million-plus dollar operation, with hundreds of employees across the country, it looks like we’ve played them to a draw so far.

“I think that gives you some sense of how we run a campaign, There hasn’t been a lot of drama in my campaign. You haven’t seen a lot of turnover in my campaign. And the culture of my campaign is one in which I think everybody feels a great sense of ownership.”

The other point I would like to discuss is about how the Democratic Party is going to handle the dead-split between Obama and Clinton. Yesterday Obama swept the primaries. He is continuing to gain momentum. Clinton has the electorate in the two most important states of California and New York for Democrats. They both are bringing out new voters. The turnout on Super Tuesday was strikingly high in comparison to the Republicans. According to exit polls from last week, 7 out of 10 people would vote for either Hil or Ob. Nonetheless, neither candidate may have enough delegates for the Democratic Convention unless there is a revote in Florida and Michigan. The other option, as it was stated in New York’s Daily News today, is that Howard Dean could broker the deal. Will the continued back-and forth with detail-bashing between Hil and OB be good for the party? It will just add fuel and fooder for the Republicans in the general election. Perhaps the question should be “who would be on top, and who would be the running mate?” Any thoughts on this?

I believe (as did Krugman two days ago) that she has the better health care plan and I believe this is a critical issue not just for our wellbeing but also for our economy, as people are now trapped in jobs because of health care.

Absolutely. When I talk to Rodham Clinton supporters, this seems to be an overwhelming reason to support her. For many Democrats, universal healthcare is a point of principle not a nuance of policy.

I think she will do a better and more reasoned job on Iraq. Just pulling out to say you pull out could cause more problems we will regret. We need to take this process on responsibly and I believe she will.

Conversely, when I talk to many Obama supporters, her vote for the war seems to be an overwhelming reason to oppose her. Rodham Clinton’s vote makes many Democrats fear that she lacks a reflex distrust of the neocons. For many Democrats, opposition to the use of military invasion and occupation to achieve regime change in Iraq without an unambiguous United Nations mandate is a point of principle not a nuance of policy.

I have more confidence in her economic plans, which is issue No. 1 now. And it matters that her husband did well with the economy.

The 90s were indeed a period of prosperity that Democrats would love to replicate. The budget surplus made it easy to defend Social Security and Medicare. The dot.com boom fueled job growth, innovation and productivity. President Clinton’s multitude of carefully crafted policy initiatives ensured that the working poor and the lower middle class participated in the boom. The problem with these achievements is how evanescent they turned out to be. All of that progress was easily repealed when the Republicans came to power. Clinton’s achievements were tactical not structural. Rodham Clinton repeats her husband’s preference for wonkish, targeted, small government programs and incentives. He resorted to them as a defensive measure in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Those skills and that approach may not be required under Democratic control. Furthermore, as I argued earlier, that economic style may look like diligent management to the Democratic base but it reinforces her image — a holdover from Hillarycare — as a bossy bureaucrat to many others in the electorate.

I have more confidence in her ability in foreign policy; the easiest recent measure of that is that I think her answers in the debates were better than her opponents, especially Obama’s.

This point mystifies me. When I think of the major foreign policy issues facing the next administration, I have no idea what the major differences in priorities and approaches will be between Rodham Clinton and Obama. What are their distinctions on…
…global warming climate change?
…globalization and free trade?
…Third World poverty, aid, development, healthcare?
…pursuing or modifying the Global War on Terrorism?
…nuclear proliferation prevention?
…the reach of the US military in maintaining permanent bases overseas, nation building, intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, muscular defense of human rights?
…Mexican economic, border, immigration issues?
…Cuba’s transition from a Fidelist regime?
…relations with China? Russia? the Islamic World? Europe?

I believe her Washington experience will be useful. She has weathered every tough storm with the Republicans and will know how to work with them. It’s fine for Obama to say that he’ll hug them all but that’s not what politics is like.

This is crucial. And it is the area where my teasing comment about their contrasting styles was not facetious. On all issues — but especially on healthcare and the economy, mentioned above — the question is not what sort of President will either candidate be but what sort of government will either candidate run in conjunction with the Congress. Obama argues that a President Rodham Clinton will subscribe to the 50%-plus-one, winner-take-all, Rovian mentality that ensures continuing tough hyperpartisan government. Obama argues that his style — you call it the spiritual advisor as opposed to the manager; I say those are euphemisms for the orator as opposed to the bureaucrat — offers the chance for a change. He argues that his coattails will be longer; he is more appealing to non-Democrats; his party will be larger in both houses as a result; Republicans will not only have fewer votes they will also not have their bete-noire in the White House around whom to organize their obstructionism. You say he offers to hug his opponents. He says he does not incite knee-jerk antagonism simply by his presence.

Now you may be right and Obama may be all packaging and no substance. But either way, I argue that the crucial difference between him and Rodham Clinton is at essence one of style not of policy. The question is whether or not his style will be effective at realigning the coalitions that the two parties represent, as he implicitly claimed when he singled out Ronald Reagan as a President to emulate. If Obama gets nominated and ends up with another blue-red 51%-49% split anyway, then he is the wrong choice. If this is the year for a Democratic sweep, then Rodham Clinton is the wrong choice. A choice of Rodham Clinton may make the 51%-49% split a self-fulfilling prophecy. A choice of Obama may make the possibility of realignment more likely.

The Clintons are masters of the divide-and-conquer politics. How will Hillary manage to get compromise and agreement on these thorny policy questions when she is most well-known for spouting off about the right-wing conspiracy and such?

Or when her husband, the former president, used race-baiting in South Carolina to help her campaign?

Honestly, I was on the fence until that vile and shameful performance in SC by the Clintons. The was orchestrated and approved of by Hillary. And that turned me off to them entirely.

But I would urge you to delve a little deeper before you write off Senator Obama and his campaign as a lightweight gimmicky marketing machine. A speech at a rally does not the candidate make.

In fact, on your point that she has more of a track record, I offer you this:
http://mhallville.typepad.com/epigonic/2008/02/on-the-hunt-for.html

The claims that Clinton is more “substantive” and has “more of a track record” are, in reality, bogus. Look hard at her Senate record, please. There is not much there. I’d strongly encourage you to read this piece by James Fallows in late 2006:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

Rather, the notion she is more substantive or experienced is just the marketing line that the Clinton campaign has emphasized, and one that the media has repeated without much questioning.

I have written why I support Clinton.

I believe (as did Krugman to days ago) that she has the better health care plan and I believe this is a critical issue not just for our wellbeing but also for our economy, as people are now trapped in jobs because of health care.

I think she will do a better and more reasoned job on Iraq. Just pulling out to say you pull out could cause more problems we will regret. We need to take this process on responsibly and I believe she will.

I have more confidence in her economic plans, which is issue No. 1 now. And it matters that her husband did well with the economy.

I have more confidence in her ability in foreign policy; the easiest recent measure of that is that I think her answers in the debates were better than her opponents, especially Obama’s.

I believe her Washington experience will be useful. She has weathered every tough storm with the Republicans and will know how to work with them. It’s fine for Obama to say that he’ll hug them all but that’s not what politics is like.

She has more of a track record. I agree with what she stands for. She has been specific in her pronouncements on policy.

You are being unfair to Jarvis. He has explained why he likes Hillary…He likes her because she is is not likable.

His argument is clear: any politician who charms and inspires the voters, who talks in generalities and abstractions, is engaging in what he calls the cynical politics of celebrity marketing, turning himself to into a product.

The way for voters to guarantee that a candidate is not being manipulative is if she is unattractive. So the fact that Rodham Clinton is: a subpar orator; can be so interested in the managerial that she can be tagged with the “bureaucrat” stereotype; is tough and practical; is “specific to a fault” as Jarvis put it — are all reassuring signs.

And I think it is true that Rodham Clinton’s core of support on Super Tuesday was precisely from the part of the Democratic base that relies on the concrete, pragmatic, specific support of a federal bureaucracy to get by, especially the micromanagement that could be offered by a universal healthcare system. Poor and elderly and female and immigrant voters (apart from African-American ones) tended to agree with Jarvis; younger, more affluent, better educated voters, and non-Democrats, tended to take the other side.

This is beginning to look like a familiar Democratic primary showdown, a contemorary rendition of the party splits that brought us Walter Mondale v Gary Hart, Bill Clinton v Jerry Brown, Al Gore v Bill Bradley. The major difference this time is that Barack Obama happens to be black, so a huge section of the Democratic working class vote that would normally side with the bureaucratic machine over the progressive rhetorician is aligning differently this time.

He swells with over-cofidence when I see no substantial reasons for that confidence.

How can he expect to work well in office when the main premisis of his campaign seems to be “throw the bums out”? I don’t believe in political favors, though I do know it’s what makes the Washington world go round, but how can you even get on the merrygoround while you’re yelling “you and everything about you stinks”?

It does seem to be all about marketing and the Kennedy comparison, of course, doesn’t hurt.

I was in high school when Kennedy came in to office and even though I couldn’t vote, I campaigned and marched for him. Sorry, but I don’t see the comparison, though I do admit Kennedy was a persuasive speaker, seemed to hold a torch of inspiration, etc. Perhaps that’s the point. I’m older and white … maybe I’m too jaded for Obama.

I can and will vote for Hillary with few qualms and though she has little more experience in the Senate, I do think the years in the White House have made her aware of what it’s like, if nothing else.

You know, for several elections my choice was to write in Barbara Jordan. I’m sorry she’s gone and sorry John Edwards bowed out already.

I’m still waiting for the post where you explain why YOU SUPPORT Hillary Clinton, instead of these sideswipes attempting to convince us why Barack Obama should not be our candidate.

Or maybe you’re still trying to convince yourself that Obama is the wrong candidate? It sure sounds like it to me.

Please, tell us why Hillary is so great. The “better manager” stuff just seems totally out of character for a guy like you who is usually out there on the “bleeding edge.” I just don’t get it.

Peace.

Is the best CEO one that micromanages details, and can recite chapter and verse on every policy statement? Or is the best CEO one who lays out large agendas and sets broad policies, and who also creates a cultural climate in which management takes place?

We can predict what kind of management will be in the White House by looking at the few things Hillary managed while there before (health care reform) or by looking at the managers her husband hired when he was there. The old managers or their progeny will take up places in Hillary’s administration. How do I know that? Because there are Clintonistas serving in her campaign, at executive levels.

At the same time, we also know that the Clintons have in the past (and continue in the present) to engage in a divide-and-conquer strategy. They play the 50-plus-1 scenario well enough. And they quickly slipped into dividing the Democrats over race and gender when the South Carolina primary campaign was underway.

So knowing what I know about the Clintons past management, I am concerned.

But the reason I think Obama might be right is because he is not a micromanager. He sees the office of the president for what it is–an executive perch with the power to hire people who create an administrative climate and carry out policies. It’s up the president to create the climate and set the agenda, not parse out the details of tax rebates or social security reform.

I want a president who will try to create a culture in Washington that values compromise and appeals the better angels of our nature. I am quite certain that Hillary Clinton is not the person to do that. I suspect that Barack Obama might be able to.

I agree that there are certain aspects of his campaign that are probably more cheerleading than leading, but I think that’s just campaigning. I feel like Obama has a greater potential for bipartisan support. On the flip side I worry that Hillary Clinton would use the tactics of the Bush administration to push through liberal policies.

Again, I’m an Obama supporter and I voted for him yesterday so there’s my disclosure. I feel like this blog is an interesting experiment in transparency, since we all know you’re openly supporting Clinton. That means I need to prejudge anything you post about the campaign based on your acknowledged biases. While there are other individuals in the media who seem to play favorites they usually at least try to acknowledge the other side. I feel like by being transparent, however, you’re starting to only take a one-sided approach to the campaign.

Good oratory skills and one year of experience does not a President make. Pretty much everyone voting for Obama is making the same leap of faith that everything will work out that republicans made with Bush back in 2000. Considering how that worked out, I think its foolish to do the same thing again hoping for different results. This country cannot afford another 4 years of on the job learning.

Let Obama get some more experience and then try again. As Vice President (espeically with its expansion under Cheney) it could give him everything he needs so next time he isn’t just the inspirational choice, he will also be the pratical one.