Why She’s Losing

What is a vote for Clinton for, in the face of a movement like this? A reader described his experience at a Washington state caucus. It tells you a lot:

It’s just like you said, at Obama’s speeches the crowd chants "yes we can". In contrast, at her events it’s the plagiarized "yes she can". His campaign is an inclusive movement, hers is a well oiled behemoth benefiting from name recognition and fuzzy memories with her as a pseudo-incumbent seeking re-election and the historical vindication of her spouse.

Rural white males, the foundation of the "Reagan Coalition", are very intrigued by the idea of President Obama and very "unstoked" by the idea of President Clinton. These people, who at my caucus self-identified as "Independent" or "Conservative" came out to the Democratic caucus because they are fed up with the current Republican regime and are willing to vote Democratic for this cycle–but not for her. If she is the nominee–especially if it involves any superdelegate shenanigans or back room deals the Democrats will lose them, lose me, and lose the election.

There is a huge desire among many independents and conservatives in this country to punish the GOP for their betrayal of core conservative principles and basic competence and decency these past few years. These folks are plentiful enough to jolt the Republicans toward McCain. But a lot of these conservatives and independents like Obama because he’s obviously a smart, decent guy, because electing him would kill off Jesse Jackson style racial politics for a while, and because he seems like a liberal pragmatist who’s interested in getting things done. A lot of people will tolerate a move back to the center, even the left, if it means an end to this awful period in history and a fresh start for the country.

That’s my sense of things anyway. The Democrats are beginning to realize their choice is between a loss and a landslide victory that could change American politics for a generation. Moreover, I don’t think Obama is an ideological figure who would govern in ways that would affront the center. I can’t know that, of course. But there is a reason George W. Bush was so dismissive of him. Bush also knows that Obama is a rebuke. Clinton, in contrast, is a peer.

There really is no reason to vote for the Clintons again. It’s all about them; and this time, it really should be about the country.

Obama, Pragmatist?

James Pethokoukis looks at the evidence:

Obama…is a plausible pragmatist. His domestic policy advisers are hardly a radical bunch. One economic adviser, Jeffrey Liebman of Harvard, has coauthored an interesting compromise plan on Social Security that would raise taxes a bit, extend the retirement age a bit, and put a bit of money into personal retirement accounts.

Or look at Obama’s tax plan. In addition to new middle-class tax credits, it has a technocratic reform proposal that would make filing many tax returns easier by letting the Internal Revenue Service fill them out in advance. And the economist who devised the plan, the University of Chicago’s Austan Goolsbee, is no class warrior on taxes or China basher on trade. Don’t forget, too, that in his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama himself found a few kind words for President Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts, which slashed the top marginal rate to 50 percent from 70 percent, saying that the old sky-high rate did "distort investment decisions." Sounds pretty pragmatic.