|
(**About a week ago I posted this same commentary... unfortunately I chose a nice neutral academic sounding title, which resulted in it being promptly ignored by most of the forum. I said at the time that maybe in a week or so I'd try re-posting it with something more partisan as the title to guage the reaction, and here we are. On the one hand I'm hoping for more response. On the other I'll be somewhat disappointed if I see it just because I made the title more confrontational.)
----
Clinton is an Administrator
The majority of politicians are Administrators. We all know this when we take even a small moment to consider the matter. They are capable managers. They are skilled at navigating and employing the bureaucracy. They delegate tasks and responsibilities fairly well. They keep the gears turning and the machine oiled and prevent it from breaking down too often or too badly... most of the time. They inspire confidence in their supporters that they are capable and reliable. They keep people comfortable in their beds at night knowing someone is at the wheel who isn't going to run the ship into an iceberg.
What they do not do is institute real, sweeping change.
It's not necessarily because they don't want to, it's because they lack the toolkit necessary to get it done. Administrators are very good at using the political machinery, but the political machinery isn't constructed for revolution. It's very much made for the status quo. Maintaining the current state of affairs and telling people they should be comfortable with it is what it does best. If a persons main strength is their experience running the machine then they are well qualified to run the machine the way it usually runs. Demanding successful large scale reform and revolution from an Administrator isn't really fair to them, that's not what they're trained for.
Hillary Clinton is an Administrator. This is not to say she can't have great new policy ideas, she certainly can, she's a very smart lady. That is not to say she will not call for extensive change or does not desire to see it happen. That is not even to say she will not actively fight for it. She just isn't equipped to see it through successfully. She would make a very capable president. She would be a gargantuan improvement over the last 8 years, and relative to them that difference may very well give the impression of sweeping change and revolution even if it is really more a return to the status quo after an 8 year radical departure into total incompetence. And for many people that's what they would be more than happy to see, so she appeals on those grounds. The experience argument is all about this.
Obama is a Leader
Very few politicians are Leaders. Leaders don't just manage people, they inspire them in masses when they would otherwise be taking no notice. They mobilize them in hordes when they would otherwise be staying home. They don't just organize projects and staff committees... they ignite movements. They can use the machine, but they do not rely on it, because they are capable of bringing in such massive levels of support from quarters that don't typically come into play in day to day politics. The people who would be apathetic and uninvolved under the direction of an Administrator, leaving it to the machines own devices to get anything done, are out in the streets actively working for reform when rallied by a Leader.
If you want real reform, if you want the true possibility of sweeping change in how the government operates, you need a Leader to get it done. There are never any guarantees involved when you put your bets on a Leader. The fact that they have the tools necessary to institute reform doesn't mean they will... but they're your best shot at it.
Barrack Obama is a Leader. One only has to poke their head up and look around to see the evidence of it anywhere you turn. An entire generation of traditionally apathetic and uninvolved younger voters are swarming all over the democratic primaries with enthusiasm and ferver. Millions of individual donors are funding his run. Campaign offices nationwide are overrun with volunteers wanting to contribute.
When Clinton speaks people nod their heads and comment on how she has some good or even great ideas and a firm grasp on policy. Her long term supporters get excited by the prospects she offers. When Obama speaks people who have never even hear of him except in a passing news report do double-takes and switch their allegiances while those already on his side go ballistic at every confirmation of what an inspiration the man is. This is a man who many people had never heard of at all before the 2004 Democratic convention, but who, when exposed to him there for the first time, had the instant initial impression "good god, imagine him as a presidential candidate". He totally and completely overshadowed Kerry, effortlessly. I loved Kerry, I though he was a really smart guy, I can't express how superior he would have been as a president these last four years... but he was another Administrator. He didn't have it in him to inspire anyone who wasn't already prone to political activism. Obama is in a whole other league. People who are committed to seeing Clinton win certainly can't deny the effect, so they respond by trying to downplay or belittle it in an attempt to defend their candidate. All talk no action. Just words, no experience. An "empty suit". A cult of personality. "Drinking the kool-aid".
They are so, incredibly missing the point.
The man can motivate people to get excited and active about political reform when nobody else can get them off their couches to even cast a vote. If you want to get truly significant change and reform implemented in government that's what it's going to take. People recognize it in him. They don't turn out by the thousand screaming about hope and change just because Obama says "Hope" and "Change" a lot, it's because they see the potential for it to actually be realized when they're exposed to him and what he's doing.
As for the electability arguments in the GE, I don't buy them. Current GE polling is greatly effected by the continuing internal warfare over the Democratic primary. Beyond that, McCain is many things... he's a patriot whatever his detractors may say, he's a genuine war here, he's got a public image as being less dogmatic and more moderate than most Republicans (accurately earned or not)... but put that man on a stage, in front of thousands of people and a national television audience, in the first live verbal presidential debate, arguing for why we need to 'stay the course' in Iraq and explaining why it's not a bad thing that he doesn't really understand the economy and on the other side of the stage... is Barrack Obama and all the policy positions he's laid out over the last many months. Just put the outcome of that contest in your head. If McCain is smart he'd refuse to ever be in the same room as Obama and a camera from here until November, because Obama will very politely, civilly and respectfully annihilate him in a live debate. By November I expect the electoral map showing a clear victory if not a total blowout for Obama once the nation turns their true attentions to Obama vs. McCain instead of Obama vs. Clinton.
To sum up:
Solid policies and management of the nuts and bolts of the government of the nation: Either Obama or Clinton will do that job just fine.
A whole new generation of politically active and engaged Democrats: Obama can produce it. Clinton cannot.
Grassroots mobilization for true governmental reform: Obama can produce it. Clinton cannot.
And that is the bottom line for me, my perspective on the "intangible" factor at work in this contest... except it isn't intangible at all in Obama's case. It's laid out in stark and concrete terms every time you look at the nature of his support base.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
