Obama vs. Clinton: Long-Term Thoughts About Change in America
As part of my ongoing attempt to make my list of posts resemble a pay-per-view boxing channel, I am pleased to present “Obama vs. Clinton,” with apologies for not posting sooner in anticipation of Super Tuesday. (Tomemos did so; you can read his excellent post on informed indecision here, and the afterword on voting Obama here. Also, look for my upcoming post “Oilmen vs. Hitmen,” on P. T. Anderson and the Brothers Coen.) Of course, Hillary Clinton won my state, California, largely because California law gives certain people, including Jack Nicholson and Aaron Sorkin, one thousand votes each. Still, neither contender is as yet a clear favorite for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton’s my choice. In a run-off determined mostly by negatives — reasons not to vote for Clinton offset by reasons not to vote for Obama, in the hopes of not electing another Republican president — Obama is making overtures to centrist “undecided” voters with a series of rhetorical tactics and policy positions that will cripple his Administration, hurt Democrats running for Congressional office, and make it hard for a Democrat to succeed him in office. By comparison, Clinton’s biggest flaws are her pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War senatorial votes.
Clinton voted the way she did because she didn’t feel any other response was politically feasible. It was a shortsighted vote, albeit an understandable one. If she’s elected, she’ll going to end the war and withdraw American troops for precisely the same reasons. It’s what she thinks her constituents want. From the way she’s running her campaign, it’s clear that she believes she can make the greatest political gains by challenging Republicans and capitalizing on widespread disillusionment with the Bush Administration.
Obama, on the other hand, believes that the key to success lies in presenting himself as a bipartisan leader. His television ads and campaign material focus on jointly-sponsored legislation he worked on in the Senate, and his proposed fiscal reforms are thematized around “restoring fiscal discipline” to government.
Here are my concerns about Obama’s candidacy, concerns that are not parallel for Clinton:
1. Blurred differences between candidates.
The Democratic nominee will be running against John McCain. McCain’s people have pushed hard to give him a reputation for bipartisanship and independence, and he will use that against Obama. Whenever Obama talks generally about bipartisan change, McCain will use a similar rhetoric to distance himself from Bush. Whenever Obama gets into the specifics of change, McCain will cast him as too liberal for America, and he will mock Obama’s biggest projects (e.g. the health care plan) as the opposite of “fiscal discipline.” I have the audacity to hope that Clinton will go on the offensive, drawing unflattering attention to McCain’s canny masquerade of independence.
2. Incoherence at the level of the grassroots.
It’s true that Obama has a lot of grassroots support, but unfortunately that hasn’t helped define him or us. Some people are enthusiastic about him because they think he’s more liberal than Clinton, while others support his critical rhetoric about big government. Whereas evangelical grassroots movements forced American Christianity into everyone’s consciousness, no equally powerful self-definition of America can emerge from Obama’s motley of advocates. Obama has to take part of the blame. His rhetoric lacks substance. His calls for change and hope aren’t backed up by an original approach to policy.
3. Conflating military spending with domestic spending.
The debt the United States has accrued by fighting in Iraq sucks money out of our economy; conversely, expanding social programs puts money into circulation, particularly when those social programs are designed to help the poorest Americans. Instead of criticizing Bush’s imperialism, Obama is criticizing his lack of financial planning, and in response has proposed “pay as you go” legislation that would make it impossible to authorize new government spending without compensatory budget cuts or new funding sources.
He will try to cut the military budget, only to find that Republicans will use fears about our national security to block new social programs to which they are opposed. He will try to raise taxes in order to fund his new programs, and the Republicans will foreground the taxes rather than debating the programs on their merits. By making every fight a fiscal battle as well as a battle over domestic policy, he will enable his opponents to choose the most favorable tactics each time.
***
Clinton was weak during the height of the Republican era. Obama is weak now, and will lead a vulnerable Administration if elected. We need to lay the foundations for Democratic dominance, instead of setting traps for ourselves by using the Republican rhetoric of smaller, bipartisan government. It is the only way, long-term, to regain lost ground in the battle for an American government equipped to care for the American people.
“It’s true that Obama has a lot of grassroots support, but unfortunately that hasn’t helped define him or us.”
This is 100% right. The Obama wave is exciting until you realize that it’s predicated on the idea that Obama, in Michael Chabon’s words, “is a remarkable, even an extraordinary politician, the kind who comes along … no more than once a generation.” Which, aside from being kind of overblown and premature, means that the surge of turnout is a “Good for One Candidate Only” deal, rather than the kind of movement that’s transferrable. In fact, some Obama supporters have been practically bragging that they’ll stay home if Obama isn’t nominated, which doesn’t seem like a very sustainable movement.
I’m sure you’ve seen this, in particular the bits about the kind of a legislation he pushes with bipartisan support. And I’m also sure you’ve seen the articles which discuss why Obama’s support might not be transferable: he’s completely side-stepped the Democratic machine at the local level, so the people who have supported him aren’t Democrats to be transferred. They’re people who were brought into the party by Obama’s field operatives. (There’s an excellent article about his campaign in rural Nevada, but I can’t find it at the moment.)
To return to Joe:
We need to lay the foundations for Democratic dominance, instead of setting traps for ourselves by using the Republican rhetoric of smaller, bipartisan government.
Yes, Obama employs the rhetoric of bipartisan government, but if you look at his track record — the initiatives he’s passed with bipartisan support — you’ll see how empty the rejection-qua-rhetoric is.
Also, I find it odd that you’re claiming that strengthening the current political machinery will ensure Democratic dominance. I mean, I know James Carville likes to think that, but he’s a man of limited imagination.
SEK,
The question isn’t what kind of bipartisan legislation he has supported; the question is whether his rhetoric will backfire on him when he’s accused of acting unconstructively. I am perfectly certain that it will — not his bipartisan successes, but his emphasis on being bipartisan.
What do you mean by “strengthening the current political machinery”?
What do you mean by “strengthening the current political machinery”?
Clinton’s part of the DLC, the network whose influence Dean has (largely unsuccessfully) been trying to strike from the party. But from the level of community organizer up, the Clinton’s have been able to exploit the connections that have been there for decades. I mean, they’re employing Mark Penn. Obama, on the other hand, hasn’t tried to curry favor with the established network of Democratic operatives — he’s gone outside them and their spheres of influence, and has been astonishingly successful. If he’d tried to run the gauntlet all Democrats must run, Hillary would’ve beaten him bloody, since everyone manning it is an old school Clinton supporter. Instead, he ignored it — baffling the Clinton campaign, who never imagined someone who didn’t flatter the fragile egos of the Party elite could challenge Hillary, much less out-earn five-to-one.
The question isn’t what kind of bipartisan legislation he has supported; the question is whether his rhetoric will backfire on him when he’s accused of acting unconstructively. I am perfectly certain that it will — not his bipartisan successes, but his emphasis on being bipartisan.
The thing is, his rhetoric has never backfired on him. He’s like our Reagan: he pays lip-service to bipartisanship, but when it comes to legislation, his version of bipartisanship amounts to “those who agree with me can come aboard.” So while you may be certain it’ll backfire, I’d prefer to wait until I see an example of it doing so before I give that counterfactual weight. Because up to this point, the evidence all points in the other direction.
(If you can’t tell, I’m strongly opposed to HRC … not because she’s DLC, but because she’s a woman. No one who ever menstruated should have her finger near the button is what I think.)
You know what, there are times when irony just isn’t enough to justify some half-assed obvious joke. That last comment was totally unnecessary and equally obnoxious, SEK. So, mission accomplished?
It wasn’t a joke. It was an attempt to forestall the counterargument I’ve encountered every single time I’ve spoken strongly against Clinton. I bring up the DLC, people counter with implicit sexism. I’ve had the conversation veer that way with Bitch a few too many times already and thought I’d avoid it here with a quick crack to a sympathetic audience.
I apologize if I didn’t telegraph the lameness of the statement better, but it was meant to be a marker, not a joke.
To put it more powerfully: my opposition has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with Clinton’s steadfast commitment to the corporate, centrist faction of the Democratic Party. Say what you will about Obama’s rhetoric — HRC is beholden to a far more pernicious force, and if she’s elected, she’ll have to repay those favors (esp. now that she’s had to lean on them more because of the fundraising gap). She’d be a disastrous President inasmuch as she’d remind everyone of why the phrase “Clinton fatigue” was initially coined.
(But again, I’m sorry I didn’t telegraph the intended lameness more visibly. I swear that when I try to be funny, I’m a little better than that. Not much, mind you.)
“The thing is, his rhetoric has never backfired on him.”
Over, what, four years? At one time Dukakis was an unbeatable hero, too.
Incidentally, with the sexism thing: the fact is, a lot of criticism of Clinton is based on sexism, and I don’t think that’s disputable. This is especially true when people reach the level of irrational hatred; there’s nothing besides misogyny to explain it. Now, your criticism of Clinton is pretty reasonable, and based on real reasons, so I don’t think it’s a sexist one…except that I wish you had waited for someone to suggest that sexism was at work, rather than making fun of the very concept without provocation. The way you did it, it just looks like a “protests too much.”
Over, what, four years?
This is what hilzoy’s post demonstrates so well, and, she says it better than I can:
Obama has an actual legislative record, and so it is possible for us to see both how he approaches bipartisan cooperation and what results it yields. And it turns out that Obama does achieve results by working with Republicans, and doesn’t tend to compromise on core principles.
He has a long legislative record — much longer than his experience in the Senate, and longer than Clinton’s by far. (That’s if we want to consider herself on her own terms, i.e. chair of Arkansas Education Committee, a lawyer with Rose Law and a board member of Walmart, TCBY and Lefarge. I’m willing to grant that her time as First Lady of Arkansas and the US gives her some special insight into the political process, however.) But my point is, it’s not over four years, but over Obama’s entire career that he should be judged. Is his experience in the Illinois legislature less significant that Hillary’s in the White House? Maybe, but certainly not in the way she thinks and sells it.
Incidentally, with the sexism thing: the fact is, a lot of criticism of Clinton is based on sexism, and I don’t think that’s disputable.
Absolutely.
Now, your criticism of Clinton is pretty reasonable, and based on real reasons, so I don’t think it’s a sexist one…except that I wish you had waited for someone to suggest that sexism was at work, rather than making fun of the very concept without provocation. The way you did it, it just looks like a “protests too much.”
I’m all for acknowledging the elephants in the room, and sexism is certainly a player in any one people are discussing Clinton in. At this point in the race, I’ve had the “opposing Clinton is evidence of sexism” conversation fifteen times too many. While I understand that it’s part and parcel of why other people reject her, it’s not part of why I do, and it need not be a part of why anyone does. She’s a poor choice given the alternatives we currently have. That would change, obviously, if she were to win the nomination.
“I’ve had the “opposing Clinton is evidence of sexism” conversation fifteen times too many.”
Okay, sure, but you can see how laughing off the concept of sexism is not an effective way to defuse that. (I know you said it wasn’t a joke, so go with “dismissing sarcastically” instead of “laughing off” if that looks better to you.) I know you’ve already apologized and I don’t mean to pile on; I’m just nonplussed that this would seem like a good way to “acknowledge the elephants in the room.”
*nonplussed by the idea that this would seem…
Scott,
First of all, strange as it may seem, we’re talking about two different things here. You’re talking about Obama’s actual record of bipartisanship, whereas I’m talking about his decision to run on the strength of his bipartisanship. The fact that, as a senator, he garnered support rather than seeking to ally himself, says nothing about how the rhetorical battle will go if he’s elected President.
I’ve read the Obsidian Wings post, but, to be honest, it’s trumpeting accomplishments that aren’t particularly huge. For example, campaign finance reform — unless, as tomemos said to me in person, we’re talking about totally shifting campaign finance to the public sector — is an important issue but minor compared to social services like health care. Furthermore, McCain has been there every step of the way.
We developed “Clinton fatigue” because he was often thwarted by the Republican-controlled Congress. Nobody had “Clinton fatigue” during the first election, when Clinton was a charismatic Democrat with an emphasis on “change” and a plan for universal health care. You want to condemn Hillary for using the DLC, but meanwhile Obama is just recycling Bill’s rhetoric. He’s not that progressive.
Now, you can argue that Hillary’s not that progressive either, and that’s true. But she is treating the race against the Republicans as an agon. Obama will not get my support until he starts doing the same.
Finally, if the example of Howard Dean proves anything, it’s that a lot of grassroots support, without self-definition, plus $3.95, gets you a cup of coffee. What do these grassroots stand for? Where’s our “Contract with America”? Our alternative to “family values”? Our coalition that can stand up to the Christian Coalition and improve on the Rainbow Coalition? Or is it just a lot of people handing out pictures of Obama’s face? I’m well sick of cults of personality taking precedence over issue-driven populism.
I don’t assume that Obama supporters hate women, nor do I think that the race/gender issue can or should be pre-empted, ironically or otherwise. Lots of Obama supporters do love to talk about how “unlikable” Hillary is, while simultaneously dismissing the problem of Obama’s race. It will be very hard to elect a black man President. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth attempting, but it does make all the chatter about Hillary-hating quite lopsided.
But she is treating the race against the Republicans as an agon. Obama will not get my support until he starts doing the same.
I think Obama’s actually doing a much better job at this than Hillary. He writes Republicans off very well when they’re full of bluster (“I was switching between football and the Republicans”) and I think his implicit assumption that Republican values and rhetoric are over has a way of being convincing in its implicity. It’s possible that I’m responding to “nothing” as “something” but it’s more likely that Obama has better read and internalized the mood of the country (which as the blogs have been pointing out for ages, is not hard to divine if one reads polls).
As for bipartisanship, I get that rhetorically it sounds like appeasement, but it seems to me, especially after reading the hilzoy post SEK mentions, that Obama’s is the most confrontational kind of bipartisanship; even Republican bipartisanship, i.e., you do what we say–but not so overt or forceful. As hilzoy points out, Obama has been successful at it so far.
va,
In the period that followed 9/11 and the advent of the Iraq War, Bush’s approval ratings were through the roof. Now, facing a recession, the aftermath of Katrina and the California fires, rising gas prices, and an endless costly war, Americans don’t like him. The Republican Party rallied so strongly behind him that this turn has demoralized and disorganized them.
Regardless, American conservatism is not going away, and neither is the far right. The desertion of Bush doesn’t yet go all that deep. That’s why I like Hillary pressing the advantage.
The fact that, as a senator, he garnered support rather than seeking to ally himself, says nothing about how the rhetorical battle will go if he’s elected President.
I think it does though. It’s a strategy that’s been effective his entire political career, and I find it difficult to fathom that what has worked up to now will abandon him should he ride it into the White House. In fact, I think it would vindicate his faith in its strategic importance.
I’ve read the Obsidian Wings post, but, to be honest, it’s trumpeting accomplishments that aren’t particularly huge.
Compared to which of Clinton’s accomplishments are Obama’s relatively minor?
For example, campaign finance reform — unless, as tomemos said to me in person, we’re talking about totally shifting campaign finance to the public sector — is an important issue but minor compared to social services like health care.
And you’d trust someone who’s campaign’s increasingly financed by (and Presidency increasingly leveraged to) the health-care industry? Someone who only lagged behind Rick Santorum in the amount of money contributed by health-care lobbies during her last Senate run?
You want to condemn Hillary for using the DLC, but meanwhile Obama is just recycling Bill’s rhetoric. He’s not that progressive.
Better the devil we know than the one we don’t? I realize this isn’t your point, but you act is if DLC sponsorship is an insignificant fact. It isn’t. Obama might not be that progressive, but he’s far more progressive than anyone affiliated with the DLC. (Esp. someone as strongly affiliatiated with it is as Clinton is.)
But she is treating the race against the Republicans as an agon. Obama will not get my support until he starts doing the same.
I’d prefer the Democratic candidate be elected, and given that Obama will have the support both of the people he’s pulled into the party and the party regulars, he has a far better shot at doing that. (tomemos’ point about Obama’s supporters not be transferable is an important one come general election time.) In short, I don’t care if he wins it by being the Democratic Reagan and we have to hear about Obama Republicans for the next couple decades: if Obama can push a center-left package through the way Reagan pushed a conservative-right, I’ll be happy.
When Clinton was in office, he did little to countervene the Reagan administration’s larding of the legal system with ultra-conservative judges. Now Roe v. Wade is threatened by a Supreme Court chaired by Justice Roberts. The Clintons had their chance to prove they possessed the ruthlessness to undo the damage done by a far-right administration. They failed, selecting pro-corporate, hard-centrists whose decisions outside of a few (admittedly key) social issues are indistinguishable from their conservative’s peers.
If HRC wants to take the credit for what worked in Bill’s administration, she’ll have to take the blame too.
Finally, if the example of Howard Dean proves anything, it’s that a lot of grassroots support, without self-definition, plus $3.95, gets you a cup of coffee.
This seems to me a difference not in degree but kind. Dean managed $50 million throughout the entire course of his campaign. Obama raised $32 million in January. His organization is far better prepared and run than Dean’s was, in no small past because many of those who flew by the seat of Dean’s pants are running it. And this, of course, is without the aid of MoveOn.org, which only just started contributing to his coffers. He’s a far superior candidate, strategically speaking.
“By comparison, Clinton’s biggest flaws are her pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War senatorial votes.”
You also forgot her immigration “policy” that would ship illegal immigrants back to Mexico without due process, the fact that her pro-war vote speaks to a broader hawkishness in foreign policy e.g. Iran, the fact that her campaign’s race-baiting may have burned its bridges to African American communities after South Carolina and, finally, the and recent polls that show Obama handily beating McCain while she is neck and neck. Her high negatives and, yes, unlikeability mean that it’s going to be difficult to move those numbers very much between now and November.
Of course, this thread has been on ice for a while, but since I hate to leave work undone, here are my responses. I should note that I am certain Hillary will lose, and I believe it’s her fault: she ran a nasty and unfocused campaign. Thus, these comments go more to what dangers Obama may face.
SEK writes:
I think [Obama's record of bipartisanship in Congress] does [matter] though. It’s a strategy that’s been effective his entire political career, and I find it difficult to fathom that what has worked up to now will abandon him should he ride it into the White House. In fact, I think it would vindicate his faith in its strategic importance.
The White House simply is not equivalent to Congressional work. Congress is a plural body; people working within it have an incentive to cooperate, since they can take credit for bills they help engineer and pass, and it’s hard to get anything moving without building coalitions. Congressional representatives do not get to share the credit for bills designed by the President, particularly if they’re from the other party; many Democrats voted with Bush in the period following 9/11, but Bush got all the glory. Furthermore, both Democrats and Republicans benefit from being able to call themselves “bipartisan” while in Congress. Presidents serve a different function; rather than partnering with them in order to gain a reputation for bipartisanship, the opposing party uses them as the focal point for strategic attacks designed to win Congressional seats. That’s the political and rhetorical consequence of the separation between the branches, and of the fact that the President, being only one person, makes an easy target.
Compared to which of Clinton’s accomplishments are Obama’s relatively minor?
This is begging the question. Neither of them has done especially groundbreaking work, which is partly why I’m focused on the rhetoric and strategy of the campaigns.
And you’d trust someone who’s campaign’s increasingly financed by (and Presidency increasingly leveraged to) the health-care industry? Someone who only lagged behind Rick Santorum in the amount of money contributed by health-care lobbies during her last Senate run?
I’m not going to assume either candidate is lying about their priorities; there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Obama’s deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq, but I’m not going to start out by assuming it can’t be done.
In short, I don’t care if he wins it by being the Democratic Reagan and we have to hear about Obama Republicans for the next couple decades: if Obama can push a center-left package through the way Reagan pushed a conservative-right, I’ll be happy.
When Clinton was in office, he did little to countervene the Reagan administration’s larding of the legal system with ultra-conservative judges. Now Roe v. Wade is threatened by a Supreme Court chaired by Justice Roberts. The Clintons had their chance to prove they possessed the ruthlessness to undo the damage done by a far-right administration. They failed, selecting pro-corporate, hard-centrists whose decisions outside of a few (admittedly key) social issues are indistinguishable from their conservative’s peers.
I want to highlight the language here: I’ll be happy. A lot of things make me happy — the smell of cut grass, a fresh cup of coffee, love — but our centrist Democratic party, Obama included, does not make me happy or satisfied, and I hardly think contentment with small gains is the best we (as the electorate) can offer.
I agree with your criticisms of Bill Clinton, and time has borne out your evaluations of Obama’s strong base, though his ability to raise funds should not be placed in some different category from Clinton’s fundraising. Let’s hope that he can take a harder line than Bill, especially given how favorable the moment is for it.
Brandon,
Fair point about her immigration policy, and of course she has proven deeply unlikable.
One point where I differ: her votes on Iraq do not create a precedent for a new war in Iran. She was bowing to political pressure from the Bush Administration, not pursuing her own vision of foreign policy.
Pingback: the obama memos & obama’s long game « The Kugelmass Episodes