« Presidential Required Reading
Super Tuesday neglects Pakistan at America’s peril »



The Clinton-Obama Conundrum

February 2nd, 2008
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

Two weeks ago, I proclaimed “clarity at last” when announcing my favorites for the primaries, Obama and McCain, and the likelihood that I’d vote for the latter in the general election. While I remain strongly in favor of these two candidates for the primaries, I’m now less sure about the general. I’d like to see more from both men, and hopefully, I’ll be able to, although there’s no guarantee either will win their party’s nom.

McCain’s path to the GOP nom is not as inevitable as it seemed a couple days ago. But he’s clearly in better shape than Obama, whose momentum appears to be stalling.

That’s a shame. Perhaps more of this type of effort will shift things in Obama’s favor in the remaining days before Super Tuesday. Or maybe some more of this — although I honestly and increasingly fear nothing will be enough, that the powerful allure of a vote for pragmatism (i.e., Clinton) may be too powerful to overcome.

I was in the office of a prominent U.S. Democratic Senator on Wednesday. A legislative assistant in that office — someone with whom I communicate frequently and whose opinions I respect — said he thinks, no matter whom the next President is, he/she is going to have his/her hands full figuring out how to adjust the expectations of the American public, a population that increasingly wants more from government but doesn’t want to pay for it. While I found that statement odd coming from a Democratic staffer, he has a point, and he also seemed to suggest Hillary would be better suited for the task than Obama, whose “Yes We Can” motif may be raising expectations so high as to make them unmanageable.

Similarly, one of my bosses, a long-time Democrat and first-year Baby Boomer, seems to speak for many of the early half of his generation in favoring the grounded pragmatism of Sen. Clinton over the uplifting rhetoric of Obama.

And yet, I can’t help translating both of their critiques as “establishment thinking,” as selling short the utility, the power, and the person of Obama. And that’s precisely why I’m thinking about crossing party lines in Missouri’s open primary on Tuesday and casting my vote for the Senator from Illinois.



This entry was posted on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 31 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I think it's safe to say that Colonel Ray's charges are well steeped in hyperbole - at the very least. Anyway, we can get a pretty good idea from this of what kind of BS is going to be slung around during general election campaigning. It's going to be an ugly business I'm afraid.

    "...a population that increasingly wants more from government but doesn’t want to pay for it."

    I reckon most folks would be happy to just get a government that does what it says it will do, stands for what it claims to stand for, doesn't lie to them, doesn't waste national blood and treasure, and doesn't forget them after the day of the election. Maybe that's asking too much eh?
    • ^
    • v
    I dunno, Pete. I have reservations about Obama, also... but when is that not true in a presidential election? What I think I hear in your post, Pete, is fear of the unknown. But the more detail I've heard (particularly re: economics), the better I've felt. And I can't stomach the polarization we're guaranteed to see from a Hillary presidency. I'm just so sick of it.

    Meanwhile -- I suspect JSpencer is correct that we'll hear more from Colonel Ray and his ilk. The upside to that, of course, is that they'll expose themselves for the rest of us to gaze upon... with no small amount of pity. Living with such ignorance must be very difficult.
    • ^
    • v
    But what the Colonel Rays of the world spew out appeal only to the hardcore Republican base, a segment of our country that increasingly repels the independent and moderate segment of the American populace and just isn't enough to win a national election.
    • ^
    • v
    I would feel comfortable with McCain, but would prefer the agenda and inclusiveness of Obama or Clinton. I sense all these folks have evolved to be inclined towards collaboration and principled compromise.
    To me, it is as important to replace the more ideological extreme Senators with Centrists. Otherwise we may be seeing continued gridlock.
    • ^
    • v
    See, this comfort people express with McCain - it baffles me. I have never felt it.
    • ^
    • v
    The Democrat's race is too close (big mo be damned). I'm a volunteer for the Obama Campaign here in Georgia. We are excited that it's close. And like Senator Obama said, this isn't going to be easy. The Clinton Machine is powerful and influential.

    I'll tell you one thing, there will be a whole gaggle of disappointed Dems if Senator Clinton gets the nod and doesn't choose Senator Obama as her running mate (AND YOU BETTER ACCEPT BARACK!!!!!). I know I will. I really really really will be disappointed. Senator Obama made me want to vote. Made me volunteer. He's so damn inspirational. Really makes me believe what former president JFK said:

    And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

    I really believe that because of Senator Obama. Let me stop now before I start gushing.
    • ^
    • v
    ColonelRay,

    Think about this, you are basically accusing a standing U.S. Senator has indirect ties to a dead dictator by way of his middle name. You are also saying the American electorate that has already voted have been duped by this "murderous dictator by way of middle name" name Barack Hussien Obama. Hmm... Well I better tell my sister who married a man who's last name is Hussien to watch out. He may use chemical weapons on her while she sleeps. In fact, we better watch ALL Hussiens because they are "murderous dictators by way of their middle names". That's just asinine. And then you add the "women tingle all over" angle. Sheesh! Just heaping the curds on thick today.

    ColonelRay, we don't make a habit here of removing comments here at TMV. We appreciate sharp criticisms and rebukes. But you sound like the spoiled brat of the schoolyard saying anything and everything for attention.
    • ^
    • v
    I'll play along a little ColonelRay by asking you this: is Senator Barack Hussien Obama a threat to the security of this great nation? Because you're implying much and the only conclusion to draw is that he's a threat. And he should be ran out of the Senate and questioned like the rest of Saddam Hussien's crew. It's the only course of action sir. And while your chewing on that, I'll be asleep. Cause this play along is boring... zzzz....
    • ^
    • v
    I'm trying to think whether I've ever heard Hillary's middle name. Or Mitt Romney's. Or John Edwards'... or John McCain's.... or....... or......

    They must all be trying to hide something.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't know where you've been getting your information CR, but I suggest you go to the Chicago Tribune for some solid background on Tony Rezko (not Rezcko) since they've been researching and reporting on him longer than anyone else I've heard of. Yup, he's in jail and I'm sure we'll be finding out more about him as time goes on, but from what I've seen he has ties to lots of politicians and from both sides of the aisle too - including fundraising for our own current occupant of the Whitehouse. With that in mind, I would imagine that any ties to terrorist organizations would have been revealed before now. I've yet to read of any, but then I don't go out of my way to obtain news from the whackosphere either. And who cares what anyone's middle name is. Good grief...
    • ^