This Primary Is No Style Contest
BALTIMORE—Since Barack Obama declared his candidacy just over a year ago, the overweening tendency—in the media and in the world beyond—has been to frame his battle with Hillary Clinton in terms of the tension between style and substance.
This idea has been expressed in two forms: doubts about whether Mr. Obama’s sheen of rhetorical prowess hides a lack of substantiality beneath, and assertions that the Democratic contest is being fought over essentially cosmetic differences.
As far back as 10 months ago, the Associated Press reported that “voices are growing louder asking the question: Is Barack Obama all style and little substance?”
And the headlines this year have included the following: “In Iowa, Dems Vary on Style, Not Substance” (CBSNews.com, Jan. 1); “Democrats Emphasize Style Over Substance” (Boston Globe, Jan. 8).
But in this campaign, a dichotomy that places serious matters of policy on one side and the supposed fripperies of presentation on the other is utterly false.
In Mr. Obama’s case, the style is indivisible from the substance. His optimistic oratory and his near-fetish for inclusivity lie at the core of his candidacy. They signify profound differences in approach and philosophy from Mrs. Clinton. The vitality of those differences is even now underappreciated because it fails to fit the traditional framework of a left-right struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party.
Yes, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have very similar policy proposals. But that is not the same thing as having identical beliefs.
Mr. Obama’s speech here to a capacity crowd at a huge downtown arena on Feb. 11, for example, was awash with the sort of rosy language that it is almost impossible to imagine falling from Mrs. Clinton’s lips.
Referring to his feelings as he launched his candidacy, Mr. Obama said, “I was betting on the fact that Americans were hungry for a new kind of politics, hungry for something different—that they were tired of a politics that was all about tearing each other down and more interested in a politics of lifting the country up.”
Coining a new term for Republicans he believes he can convert to his cause, the Illinois senator added, “We’re gonna get some Obamacans in this election. We’re gonna get some independents. We’re gonna build a working majority. … That’s how you win an election. Not by turning people off but by bringing ’em in. Not by being angry all the time, but by being hopeful.”
Mr. Obama even managed to couch one of his frequently expressed criticisms of Mrs. Clinton in terms of that same hope.
Referring to an initially unnamed opponent who accused him of “peddling false hopes” and needing a “reality check,” he said, “Senator Clinton said that. She did! The implication is that somehow I’m naïve. It’s true that I talk about hope all the time. I have to talk about hope because—let’s face it—the odds of me standing here were very slim.”
Mr. Obama’s supporters seemed to respond in kind, speaking of him afterward in similarly naked emotional terms. Lamar Shields, a Chicago native now living in Baltimore, said as he left the arena, “I think people want someone who feels connected to them—that feels their hunger, feels their pain. And I think people can relate to hope. It’s the only thing that brings people together.”
Stacie Laverne, also of Baltimore, who attended the rally with her 5-year-old son, said, “This is all about emotion.”
It’s easy to see these reactions as overblown and Mr. Obama’s appeal as fundamentally chimerical. He can sometimes seem more like a character drawn from The West Wing than a real candidate for the Oval Office—sometimes, in the midst of the soaring rhetoric, the charisma and the call to nobility, one can feel like it’s only a matter of time before grandiose music strikes up and aerial footage of a sun-drenched Washington Monument appears as a backdrop.
But for the most part, Mr. Obama has managed to tread the fine line between aspiration and bombast successfully. His message, put simply, is that politics can be better than it is, that the rules can be changed.
Mrs. Clinton doesn’t believe the game can be changed, but holds out the promise that she can play it better than anyone else. Mrs. Clinton’s emphasis on toughness is rooted in this grimmer worldview. On the same day that Mr. Obama spoke in downtown Baltimore, Mrs. Clinton proudly referred to herself at an event as “battle-scarred,” and said she could go “toe-to-toe” with John McCain in a presidential election. “A lot of these fights are fights you have to have,” she said. “You can’t walk away from them.”
If either were elected president, the divergent mind-sets would self-evidently lead to a very different approach to governing: One would seek to persuade and co-opt some ideological opponents; the other would want to outmaneuver and defeat them.
All this is at stake when we talk of the candidates’ differences of style. It’s anything but a minor matter.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.8
- 42.5
- Obama +7.3
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 57.3
- 35.9
- +21.4
- McCain
- 50.1
- 42.3
- +7.8
The eyes of this country are upon you !!! Please vote with careful consideration.
When you vote, don’t believe the Clinton campaign when it asserts that Barack Obama is not qualified to lead this country. Obama’s great background exceeds Hillary’s qualifications. Here are a few highlights from Barack Obama’s resume…
He graduated in the top 1% of his class at Harvard Law School with a major in Constitutional Law, and was elected President of the Harvard Law Review - a great honor.
Hillary graduated in the middle of her class and flunked her law exam TWICE (this is true, check it out !!)
Obama could have gotten a high paying prestigious job, but opted to work as a community organizer in the poor sections of Chicago helping blacks, hispanics and others to gain a political voice and get ahead.
Obama then worked for years as a Civil Rights lawyer representing a wide range of clients.
He also worked as a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
For her ENTIRE CAREER in Arkansas, Hillary worked as a CORPORATE LAWYER representing large companies in lawsuits against them.
Hillary then became First Lady when Bill won the election, and for 8 years the one “real” project she headed was Health Care Reform, in which she failed miserably.
Barack Obama served as State Senator of Illinois for 8 years, and he has been U.S. Senator for ther last 3 years. He has a total of 11 years in ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE.
Hillary has a total of 6 years in ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE.
You be the judge. Who’s background is more relevant ??
Hillary Clinton can't think outside the box. She is still playing the same political games that she played in the Nixon Era. In her El Paso speech, the one that she forgot to mention VA, MD and DC, she talked about registering voters and claimed her audience was the children of those voters. Her experience is having played this game so long, she knows the rules.
She explains her losses in terms of Red State-Blue State. People who didn't vote for her husband are the "others" that must be beaten down. This same logic lost the last 2 elections, pretending that states are either Red-Blue or in play. They ignore the 1984 elections, where Massachusetts voted Republican.
Obama thinks along the 50 State plan. He knows that the President governs all Americans, not just the ones who can get him into office. His February 5th plan was to win states that Clinton says "Don't Matter". Well, their delegates kept him in the game,and now he is well ahead.
In a McCain-Clinton matchup, she will target PA, OH, FL and NM. She'll ignore TX, LA, GA, etc. The Democrats will suffer by not picking up Congressmen and Senators from those states, just as they did in 2004.
Obama will challenge McCain in VA, LA, GA, and even AZ. He knows that even in losing those states, he is building the party and the future. His election night will not come down to a few thousand votes on an Ohio gambit, hoping to just get over 270 EVs.
She is playing the game, and he is changing it. That's the difference, and why he is winning, and she is being outsmarted.
Really great article. Thanks.
I think the point you make is that the medium is the message. In this case, the candidates themselves represent both the medium AND the message. If that is indeed the dynamic we are seeing, is it any wonder America gravitates towards hope rather than ( frankly I'm at a loss as to what HRC's counterpoint is to that); towards cooperation rather than a fight?
I hate to say it, but this is a very dumb article, relying on stereotypes re: Barack and Hillary.
Does Obama, the most Llberal member of the Senate, think he is going to get cooperation from the Republican right? Does he think that his silver tongue and peaceful demeanor is going to move the other side one single iota? They will eat him alive for breakfast!
The idea of "cooperation" sounds good, but is hopelessly naive, and is not a substitute for having well thought out policies that could conceivably receive bipasrtisan support. Were Obama to become President he would need to shift away from the Left considerably or end up being defeated on every side.
I don't understand why it is that JFK was the last democrat to understand how the economy works: every single cent, made won or spent, comes from BUSINESS....jobs come from business, taxes come from business, food stamps come from business, health care, fuel, clothing, food, welfare, toys, churches, armies, diapers......every single cent comes from business....so WHY do democrats raise taxes, which force businesses to raise prices or lay people off? WHY? as much of an idiot as bush was, his tax cuts generated RECORD tax revenue for the government...it's a fact. I see obama as the opposite of jfk, because the single most important issue, on which all other issues rely, is the economy.
I just hope Democrats will remember that US Presidential elections are NOT decided on popular votes but on electoral votes, whereby a one-vote margin winner of any state wins ALL the electoral votes for that state.
Senator Obama may have won certain DEMOCRATIC caucuses in some states and the media with vested interests may spin that as him having a broad national appeal, but does any democrat really believe he will think he will carry some of those states in the general? The Democratic Party is flirting with defeat come the fall.
An independent voter may well vote for Senator Obama in the Democratic nomination race and very well vote Rebublican in the general. After all, it wll be a contest with a relatively 'moderate' Republican nominee, Senator McCain. Yes, you need independents to win over all but if you don't have your base, it's over.
Let's remember the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" slight-of-hand message crafted by Karl Rove in 2000.
What's the difference between W. 2000 and Obama 2008? Principally that Obama might actually believe it! But wait, there's more....
What seems to be escaping many folks is that if "We, the people" actually get back involved with the democracy, then guess what, the politicians who make a living slinging mud at one another are going to start trying to do "the people's" bidding.
What bidding is that? The agenda that a president like Obama can lay out for the country. Why would they agree to do it? Because their constituents would be all over them like a cheap suit.
That's how the well-defined differences between HillBill and Obama, or Obama and McCain play out. Obama has the ability to energize and grow the electorate who want to start pulling the levers of democracy again.
That's why Obama scares the Dickens out of the lobbyists and the monied interests who have bought and paid for our elected officials since the 1960s. If 500,000 - 1,000,000 donors fuel the Obama campaign this year, then who owns him?
The people, that's who.
And therein lies the genius of his whole campaign.
The previous commenter wrote:
"An independent voter may well vote for Senator Obama in the Democratic nomination race and very well vote Rebublican in the general."
But why not extend that logic a little further? Isn't it also true that a Democratic voter who favored Clinton in the primaries will end up voting for Obama in the fall?
They will both get the same number of votes from Dems. The difference is that Obama can make inroads with independents that Clinton can't.
So let me get this right. Even if Obama is all style that's OK if the style-thing is all about wanting to be inclusive. Not having any specific plans or reverting to paleo-liberal approaches when there is a plan is gonna be OK to non-liberals so long as we speak inclusively. Golly, I'm convinced now that you have explained it.
With an ability to spin like that you should be working for Hillary and Bill.
Please -- no one is GRIM except for hypocritical Obamites. He keeps saying that Clinton is HATED or "more of the same" so "vote for me." That is cynicism and anger in the extreme. You media hacks cannot think outside of the box. After your coronate Obama, you'll go back to Britney Spears. Yeah - now that's cynicism. Obama and his worshippers are naive. Actually, he's not naive. He knows how to play games. Like he voted "absent" on the eavesdropping bill -- just like Clinton -- which passed this week. His stupid fans just can't see the game. So I guess that does make him the perfect politician. He can give you a mindfk without you knowing it.
To answer a question that was asked earlier: I am a Clinton fan AND I personally will not vote for Obama. Hopefully a real liberal 3d party candidate will come along so that I can vote for substance. People who believe that Obama can pull in all of Clinton's supporters are still riding in the sky from his speeches. Sorry -- you lost my vote with the vitriolic attacks on Clinton. This party unveiled its sexist and spineless core. Why sexist? Obvious. Why spineless? You are voting out of fear that the Republicans will attack Clinton. In case you dont know -- that's what Republicans do! They are going to attack Obama too, and if you believe otherwise you are either too naive or too stupid to have the right to vote. Some of you are too young to remember, but the Republicans attack every Dem - whether nice or tough. Remember Jimmy Carter? No. The media do not report history.
Campaign trails are not the forum for reciting 10 point plans. Those plans are available on websites. Further, too many people believe that electing President is about electing policy wonks. If that were true, some of the wierdest and maladjusted professors will win all the time.
Hillary's problem is that she is a weak candidate. She would not have gotten this far but for her last name. Further, just look at how she is mismanaging her campaign and that should give you an idea of how she would run the white house.
Some days she is experienced. On other days she is for change. then she is for solutions. Then she has found her voice. It makes you wonder what are her core beliefs. Add that to her vote on the war and her inability to see that the vote was a huge mistake and you have a formula for a campaign that will fail.
Adirondax -- please. "The people" gave us Kerry and Gore....Get real. Voter registration soared during Gore's campaign and during Dean's. This is nothing new. Stay focused on history people. This is so annoying.
Campaign trails are not sermons either. I wonder what Obama's core beliefs are. I know what Clinton's are because she tells us in detail. All I know is that Obama is for "change," "hope," and "freshness." Wow -- that's so deep; hand me a tissue. Obama supposedly opposed the war from a safe distance, but has voted lockstep with Clinton since he finally made it to Congress. Where was he when the eavesdropping legislation passed this week? RIGHT THERE WITH HILLARY -- STRATEGICALLY VOTING "NOT PRESENT." The change generation is more of the same.
In response to maxy samy, give use a break, please. This picking and plucking of the facts is disingenuous of you. Ms. Clinton was a star in politics very early in her career, working on different campaigns. Even as a very young person, in political circles she was known as someone with brains, grit and influence. What law exams did she fail? Please provide the details. Why skip her tenure working for non-profits after law school? When she moved to Arkansas to be with her husband while he started his career, lets pay attention to the fact that someone in that family had to bring home some money. So, Hillary worked at a law firm. These are real people folks. They have a daughter they were concerned about raising. Nobody is perfect, and there is much to admire in Hillary Clinton. Just as Obama is helping to break down some barriers, Hillary was doing the same during an entirely different era. And, if you don't want to give her credit for eight years in the White House as a very ambitious First Lady who worked on politics as well as policy, all the while being systematically attacked by a vicious press and right wing adversaries, at least give her credit for her full two terms as US Senator from New York.
MAXY -- YOU are full of it. I went to Yale Law School, and it does not rank students. The school does not even have GPAs. Clinton did not "flunk" anything. And law schools do not have majors. So Obama did no "major" in constitutional law. Furthermore, Clinton started her career at the Children's Defense Fund and became the first woman partner in her state's largest law firm. Stay off the anti-Clinton websites and do some real research.
By the way -- I think it is great that Obama registered people to vote for him. He is brilliant!
A previous commenter wrote:
"An independent voter may well vote for Senator Obama in the Democratic nomination race and very well vote Rebublican in the general."
But why not extend that logic a little further? Isn't it also true that a Democratic voter who favored Clinton in the primaries will end up voting for Obama in the fall?
They will both get the same number of votes from Dems. The difference is that Obama can make inroads with independents that Clinton can't.
That may well be true. However, any fair-minded non-biased person who reads this and other blogs and observes the "disdain" that his supporters have for Senator Clinton and those that support her would question that assumption and indeed Senator Obama's assumption that he can get Clinton's supporters to vote for him in the general if he's the nominee but not vice-versa. That may well happen but for now, it is just that - AN ASSUMPTION.
That is why, going forward both camps (...and I refer to the supporters!) need to tone it down or the winners will be the Republicans.
To the previous poster: McCain will win. I know too many women and poor people who cannot stand the treatment of Clinton. Not to mention the Latinos. Sorry - but you cannot tear down loyal Dems and expect loyal Dems to come out and vote for you. I am a black guy, and I personally refuse to vote for Obama due to the sexism among his fanbase and tacit approval of it.
On policy I cannot tell the differnce between Hillary and Obama. One wants universal health care, by reducing cost, the other wants universla health care by forcing people to buy insurance.
This is blown out of proportion and bingo one is substance and the other is style.
Hillary cannot manage a campaign. She blew $140M on nothing and ended up loaning her campaign $5M. Can she manage the US economy?
Ok, I absolutely must respond to this. You do NOT major in anything in law school. You go to law school, and you get a law degree. During that time, you take constitutional law, but you do not major in anything during law school. Please. learn. basic. knowledge.
Obama wants to force every household with kids to buy insurance. Of course, because you worship the allmighty Obama, you do not want to hear this fact.
And please get over the campaing thing. You guys call her "Billary," but you forget that Clinton did a great job managing the economy. What has Obama done for the South Side of Chicago except registrer people to vote for him?
That person saying you have law school majors is just another blinded Obamaniac.
Bill Clinton did a great job at managing the economy so Hillary Clinton would do a great job at managing the economy?
This is why the good people of america are rejecting her. I hope a real woman will run one day. i can't wait to vote for Dr. rice.
A previous post:
......This party unveiled its sexist and spineless core. Why sexist? Obvious. Why spineless? You are voting out of fear that the Republicans will attack Clinton. In case you dont know -- that's what Republicans do! They are going to attack Obama too, and if you believe otherwise you are either too naive or too stupid to have the right to vote. Some of you are too young to remember, but the Republicans attack every Dem - whether nice or tough. Remember Jimmy Carter? No. The media do not report history.
I agree. As a black man, I am very disappointed and ashamed to note that sexism is the order of the day in the Democratic party. And you certainly are right, the part has lost its mojo! The need to win is all consuming and there is no longer the aspiration to stand up and fight for what is right (...because they are scared of what some Republican will do if Clinton is the Democratic nominee).
As for Senator Obama, I wait to see what his reaction will be to the proposed disenfranchisement of over a million voters who came out and voted in Florida and Michigan (in spite of there being no campaign) by the DEMOCRATIC National Committee. If he is truly for CHANGE, I expect him to say we cannot keep disenfranchising people in this country (through no fault of theirs), we need to CHANGE and let their votes count.
Now, that's a CHANGE we can believe in...
.....or is it just all empty rhetoric?
Unfortunately, Obama cannot beat McCain (especially if Condi is his VP choice) because Obama is not tough enough. This is No Country for Weak Men. In fact, its no world for them either. If George Bush has had a tough time dealing with the tough leaders of Russia, Venezuela, etc no way Obama is gonna win them over with niceties.
The Republicans are not afraid to attack, which Hillary has been afraid to do for some reason. The only way to beat Obama's uplifting speeches is to attack and make him defend himself on the issues. The Republican machine is going to bully Obama, punch him in the stomach and take his lunch money.
My point was NOT that because B. Clinton ran the economy well that his wife will. Read carefully. My point is that you Obamaniacs call her Billary and say she is "more of the same" -- as if they are conjoined twins. If this is true, then you shouldnt be worried about the economy. If it is not true, then you guys are pathetically lying about Hillary Clinton. So which is it?
The run of obama has been hyped by the media and without them and the pundits obama's rhetoric would be just that rhetoric. AS the WSJ has put the air is deflating from the baloon with his dire message.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obama_at_the_top.html
And it won't be hard for the rightwing to squash obama if he were to win the nominee.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120283060435262407.html?mod=djemalertNEW...
The Arizona senator, in turn, offered his own take on a popular theme of Mr. Obama's campaign. "Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing," Mr. McCain said, "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."
It is time the American people wake up out of this mind numbing farse that the media and punditry has been brainwashing the American people and start evaluating what is at stake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html
As far as obamas "new" politics it is a scam how does one rewrite a bill that would have held the nuclear industry accountable to give them carte blanche?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp=&adxnnl=1...
The biggest scam is being perpetrated on the American people by the media and obama. WAKE UP AMERICA, UNLESS YOU WANT CONTINUOUS REPUBLICAN RULE.
If not hope, what is there?
As far as I'm concerned the fact that Hillary has said that if people don't willingly sign up for her health care plan, thn she will go after their wages is enough reason not to ever vote for her !