Obambi Versus Clintzilla
Robert Tracinski uses that as the title for his column that is up over at Real Clear Politics. Comparing Obama's dewy-eyed, vague message of change to the brutal, hard-nosed, bare-knuckle politics of the Clintons, makes that comparison rather apt. As he says, you have to decide which is worse.
But something odd is happening. Obambi is arguably beating Clintzilla.
The reason is not hard to discern: it is Obama's fresh, earnest idealism. The root of his appeal is that the damned fool actually means it: he puts forth every liberal bromide as if it were still 1960. He has inspired many comparison to JFK, with some dubbing his campaign "Obamalot," after the conventional view of the first years of the Kennedy administration as an idealized "Camelot." As I put it earlier this year, when Obama first emerged as a major candidate: "The left has always longed for a young, charismatic leader who will present the illusion of the left as a realm of bright-eyed, progressive idealists–an illusion that hides the tired, corrupt old ideas at the movement's core. They want JFK as they remember him–not the portrait of Dorian Gray represented by his brother Teddy. Obama restores that illusion for them."
But the problem of Obama's naiveté isn't just a smear thrown out by the Clinton machine; it is real and substantial. He demonstrated that when, in the early Democratic debates, he promised to solve the world's problems by inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez for tea at the White House–and then, in a hasty bid to make himself look like he could still be a tough guy–clumsily followed up with a proposal to unilaterally invade the lawless tribal regions of Pakistan. It was a policy that was incoherent at best…..
….This, alas, is the style of Senator Clinton's superior sophistication: the art of embracing two opposite policies at once. She is, of course, either lying to the far left when she tells them that she intends to withdraw from Iraq–or she's lying to the center when she assures them that she will be responsible about protecting America's assets and allies there. Or she's lying to both.
It is no surprise that many Democrats–particularly younger ones–have chosen the plain-spoken idealist over the calculating, triangulating pragmatist. But Obama's naivete and his idealism are inseparably intertwined–as is Clinton's experience and cynicism. They are flip sides of the basic dilemma of the contemporary Democratic Party.
Jack Wakeland hit the essential issue in 2004 when he commented in TIA Daily on the eve of Barack Obama's speech Democratic convention, the moment that launched Obama as a nation figure: "He speaks without a shadow a moral doubt, as if the moral ideal of socialism had never been put on trial, found guilty, and destroyed as the system of government for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He speaks as if the socialist ideal were a new and untested plan that promises a bright future for the world."
Cynical versus clueless? Not a lot of real choice there. But Obama is really about to find out just how ugly the Clintons play politics, I rather suspect. Hillary pulling off a narrow victory in New Hampshire was enough to ensure she will not get out early. It also guarantees that Clinton will go increasingly negative - then try to lay the blame for that on the right. But it will be coming from Camp Clinton. You can take that to the bank. Perhaps a short instructional film would be in order here.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Thursday, 10 January , 2008 @ 10:56 am
It also guarantees that Clinton will go increasingly negative - then try to lay the blame for that on the right.
Do you have a crystal ball instead of a computer? Froma Harrop - a card-carrying memebr of Clinton Inc. - blames Hilly’s problems in the Democrat primary on Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh. Can accusations against Karl Rove, Richard Cheney and Blackwater be far behind?
I predict that if Hilly the Hun wins the presidency, her relationship with the press will be far rockier that that of Slick Willy. Clinton Inc. has plenty of attack dogs like Harrop to make going after the free press esaier.
By Gaius, Thursday, 10 January , 2008 @ 11:18 am
Well, it’s a USB crystal ball…
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8544925&type=product&id=1188560188015&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=8544925
By Uncle Pinky, Thursday, 10 January , 2008 @ 11:32 am
It’s silly, but I want one of those. Along with USB missile launchers I could turn a cubicle into a cheesy ’80s movie fortress of doom.
By feeblemind, Thursday, 10 January , 2008 @ 1:10 pm
There is an interesting article at American Thinker today by Bruce Walker(?). He argues that the dem electorate has a choice to make. There is not a nickel’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues, if anything Obama is to the left of HRC. The difference is character. Obama apparently has a normal marriage and does not have the odor of scandal trailing after him. OTOH, we all know about Clinton Inc and the win at all costs startegy. It is a rather stark choice for the dem voters to make, It will be interesting to see how they decide.
By martian, Thursday, 10 January , 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Gaius, thank you for that film short. I haven’t seen it since my college days (yes it’s that old) and it’s just as funny after all these years.
As for Tracinski’s column, he has the clearest analysis of what the two candidates represent that I have seen in yet. What I keep wondering is why the Republican candidates absolutley REFUSE to say the same thing outright to the American People? I’m sure that most of them are bright enough to figure out things that are so obvious to everyone in the blogosphere.
By Mockin'bird, Thursday, 10 January , 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Oh great! Socialist vs. Socialist. That’s great for as Capitalist country. I’m voting for some candidate who has some years of private sector work behind him.