Month: January 2008

Face Of The Day

Horsearifaligetty

A vendor’s dead horse lies on the scene as Pakistani security officials gather at the site of a suicide attack in Lahore, 10 January 2008. At least 22 police officers were killed when a suicide bomber exploded a device outside the high court in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore. The bomber set off his device when police asked him to stop his motorcycle outside the court, in the latest in a wave of suicide attacks which have claimed hundreds of lives across Pakistan over the past year. By Arif Ali/AFP/Getty.

Alinsky, Clinton, Obama

A reader writes:

The principal difference between Hillary and Obama is not race or gender at all, but Saul Alinsky.

I overstate the case, but it is worth noting that where Clinton wrote her thesis on Alinsky’s organizational theory, Obama lived it. Where he rejected it as "quaint" and moved on to law school and hitched her wagon to Bill’s star, Obama went to the church basements of Chicago; that experience brought him to prominence at Harvard. Hillary became a master of the knife fight, Obama guerilla warfare. Hillary’s weapon is influence, Obama’s is people.

(And, as an aside, part of why I once again believe he may win is that where his ability to marshal popular support is clear, his skill in the backroom politics is also becoming apparent; Hillary on the other hand seems to draw more support from popular appeals to pity and fear than to the sense of common purpose and individual stake in his success that Obama invokes.  Hillary is waking up to this but only vaguely understands it–she think she has a youth problem, as demonstrated by her almost obsessive use of the word youth in the Couric interview, and the theatre that was the rally in NH, where in fact she has an Alinsky problem.)

Both have considerable talents, both no doubt believe in the causes they espouse.  But there is a difference in the effect of their success–Hillary if she wins will prove Alinsky wrong, Obama will prove him right.  Hillary has invited the voters to install her in the White House because she can fix the country for them; Obama, on the other hand, is inviting voters to vote for him because, in doing so, they can demonstrate the power of people to fix the country for themselves.

So, you see, it has nothing to do with whether Hillary is really mean or nice, vulnerable or steely; it has nothing to do with whether Obama is ready, or holds his own in the debates.  The distinction has everything to do with how it repeats itself in the minds and voices of the electorate.

I heard a man on the radio this morning call in to say that America has lost its innocence already, that we will be in Iraq forever, and that what the voters really need is a "Reality Check"; not surprisingly, he urged other listeners to vote for Hillary.  I, as an Obama supporter, would argue that what America really needs right now is Americans–to get organized and get involved in whatever cause it is they may believe in, even if I don’t happen to agree with it.  Which one of is right?  I don’t know.  But I do believe that a country filled by citizens who believe that much can be accomplished if we work together would be a better place to live.  This is the genius of Obama’s message and what he came to see from his days in Chicago:  it has nothing to do with him, it is about us.

Cuomo’s Quote Update

The full context suggests the "shuck and jive" metaphor was not referring to Obama at all:

Update: We just talked with Karlin, who told us that Cuomo’s "shuck and jive" remark was "so far removed, temporally and contextually, from any discussion of Obama," that he didn’t hear it as a reference to Obama at all. Karlin pointed us to Newsday’s Spin Cycle blog, which has posted a partial transcript of the radio interview made from a tape provided to it by Cuomo’s office. The transcript confirms that Cuomo was answering a general question about the retail nature of politics in Iowa and New Hampshire generally, and there’s nothing in his long answer to suggest that he was referring to Obama rather than to politicians in general.

A Question Of Experience?

"Since the birth of our nation change has been won by young presidents and young leaders who have shown that experience is not defined by time in Washington and years in office it is defined by wisdom and instinct and vision … The only charge that rings false is the one that tells you not to hope for a better America. Don’t let anyone tell you to accept the downsizing of the American dream," – John Kerry, endorsing Barack Obama today in South Carolina.

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

I think you’re missing something, and snippily telling people to Google Obama on this or that is not an answer. Those of us who follow this stuff closely know that Obama has position papers on this or that. But Hillary is doing a better job of conveying substance, and that resonates with people for whom her policies will have an impact on their everyday lives. For the most part, these are people who don’t spend their time on their laptops all day — they’re busying holding down one or two jobs, taking their kids to school, maybe trying to get a college degree at night —- and they certainly don’t have time to Google a bunch of white papers, or read blogs. They get their info from speeches, ads, magazines, debates, and the mass media generally.

What do they hear from Obama? Some of those most inspiring and uplifting rhetoric they’ve heard from any major politician in decades. They hear a way better sermon than they’ll ever hear at church. What do they hear from Hillary? Admittedly more plodding speeches about how she will advance this or that policy on healthcare, education, etc. Most importantly, they see someone who, while somewhat plodding, just seems like she will work very hard on solving problems that matter to them.

Furthermore, when people read articles on Obama, including your very well-written one in The Atlantic, what type of info do they get? Soaring prose on how Obama’s "face" will change the world, how inspiring he is, how he will "bring us together" in some vague, unquantifiable way. I’ve got to say — his advocates aren’t doing him any favors with lightweight defenses of him.

These are intangibles to some degree, Andrew, but Obama kind of comes off like a motivational speaker (at which he excels) while Hillary comes off as a nose-to-the-grindstone executive. Which one speaks to people where they live?