John Hodgman, of Daily Show and Mac v. PC fame, has a blog that’s generally worth reading. Today he discusses why he feels that an Obama-led Democratic party is a party he wants to be part of and why a Clinton-led Democratic party is not.
Obama represents the model of the Democratic party I wish to belong to. It is a party that is inclusive. It is a party that does not tell me that I’m the wrong kind of Democrat (ie, latte-drinking). It is a party that does not imply that the Democrats of Texas or Iowa don’t count because they don’t fit into the electoral calculus. It is a party that is committed to innovative grass roots organizing: raising funds and building policy support voter by voter in all 50 states, and does not rely solely on entrenched political machines and top-down, mass media, which is dying.
I acknowledge that Obama is not pure-as-driven snow on these metrics. I am sure some may find quotes that would support that he alienated a voter there, or benefited from a political machine here. But is clear at least to me that he is closer to the mark on these principles than his rival, and he is a leader insofar as he is showing us why they matter so very much. These models for the party, especially the matter of inclusiveness, are not merely inspiring ideas, but also represent a blueprint for what I would consider to be a broader, more vibrant, and more powerful Democratic party.
Fourth, and to specifically answer Lex, I do not dislike Hillary Clinton. I voted for her husband twice, and I think she would be a capable president, were there not a better option available.
However, she nonetheless represents what I consider to be a model for a failed Democratic party. A party that divides its own membership against one another–by suggesting that a rival is not black enough, for example, or too maybe-Muslim–in order to conquer it. A party that prefers a meaningless, symbolic conflict over an effective struggle, or reasonable compromise. A party that is essentially unprincipled, following the DLC line of tacking further and further to the right to capture what I consider to be a mythical conservative majority until finally it is merely a shadow republicanism. A party that mocks inspiration and villifies optimism.
Hodgman does a good job of articulating what has been so frustrating about the Democratic Party in recent years — the party of Clinton & Bayh, Lieberman & Daschle. This sort of spineless calculation and, ultimately, capitulation. They do not fight to win. Rather, they fight not to lose. In doing so, they give up inch by inch, foot by foot; always the defender, never the aggressor. And, utterly bland.
That’s what was so invigorating about Howard Dean. The man was willing to fight. He wasn’t terribly liberal, but he was an unabashed Democrat. And a funny thing happened. He didn’t win the nomination. One of the bland Democrats won in 2004. But Dean turned around and secured the chairmanship of the DNC. He initiated a 50-state strategy against the howlings of the likes of Clinton-advisor James Carville and Rahm Emmanuel. And, what do you know? Democratic pick-ups in 2006 were more substantial than anticipated.
Now we have Obama versus Clinton. Offense versus defense. Playing to win versus playing not to lose. Aspiration versus calculation. So, what’s it gonna be?
That’s an interesting take, Doug.
My perception of the conventional wisdom is that Obama is the conciliatory, reach-across-the aisle candidate, whereas Clinton is the aggressive, take-the-fight-to-the-enemy candidate.
Is Obama the political naif who’ll get steamrollered by yellow dog Democrats and an ever-filibustering Republican minority? Has Clinton become an LBJ-esque master manipulator who knows where the bodies are buried and can get her agenda passed by hook or by crook?
While Obama may appeal more to moderates and independents, I don’t think they’re going to stick with him after the general. Most of those voters will go back to sleep for 2 or 4 years. What Obama will be left with is a Republican minority that will be united in opposition to him just as much as they would be against Clinton. I’m sure being black won’t help him among non-retiring Republicans who hang on to their seats in November, but I think the main reason is that ideological unity of the Republican Party is openly fragmenting. The right-wing base fueled by talk radio works better in an oppositional stance, as we’ve seen. The GOP won’t know what it stands for in 2009 (apart from the fundamentals of more war, lower taxes, and more corporate welfare), but they sure as hell will know what they stand against–anything a Democratic president proposes.
Hmmm, I’m starting to see where Doghouse Riley’s coming from.
Full disclosure: I can pull the lever for either Obama or Clinton. A strategic vote is a strategic vote. If I live in a non-competitive state when the general happens, I’ll probably vote for Nader, a Green, or even a Libertarian (depending on the Libertarian–most of ’em piss me off something fierce, but not all of them regard Bastiat, Goldwater, and Rand as the Holy Trinity of politics).
I don’t get how Emanuel and Dean differed in the end. Emanuel was for targeting districts with moderate Democrats, Dean was for the 50 state strategy. But in the end a 50 state strategy is going to give you more moderate Democrats. So what’s the difference?
I’d give Emanuel more credit for ’06 than Dean. Emanuel recruited the candidates. He got some simply brilliant candidates. That double amputee Iraq War vet woman in Illinois was simply awesome. She almost won Henry Hyde’s old district.
As for Obama, the way he has mastered social networking on the Internet gives him a huge advantage. Why would you want to give that up for a candidate that, for all intents and purposes, is on the same page as Obama on issue after issue, and who galvanizes opposition much, much more than Obama does.
Obama is such a better candidate than Hillary, it’s not even funny.
Doug – That was spot on. Obama IS following the Dean strategy, and it’s working brilliantly. Obama has turned out larger numbers than the repubs in many of the solidest red states.
Buzzcut,
Tammy duckworth is exhibit a for why rahm emanuel’s strategy is a losing one. He poured tons of cash into the primary race giving the victory to a candidate that had no grassroots support and didn’t even live in the district. In the end Duckworth received 20k less votes than her primary challenger did 2 years before despite having significantly more money.
In fact the conventional wisdom is that wouldve been a democratic pickup had rahm kept his nose out of it.
I was startled last week when some of my very conservative family were giving Hillary good reviews and saying that she’d be OK as long as Obama didn’t win.This was from people who have always ‘hated’ Hillary,and never have voted for any Democrat. Last night’s exit analysis sheds more light on this view and it may be more general than just with my rw-ish family.The young are flocking to Obama and the over 65 crowd are being going for H Clinton in the Dem primary,specifically in Ohio primary. But there may have been cross-over votes for Hillary.The question is will the old people stick with Hillary or will they choose someone stable and conservative, namely McCain,in November? My guess is McCain gets the old people vote. An intellectual , Black liberal who speaks so fluently appeals to a younger set,who want change, but frightens the older set,who see current problems stemming from ‘not enough true conservatism’. I’ll vote Democrat regardless( just turned 66 ys old as Paul McCartney will in June),but there may be signicant defection to McCain from many retired people. It’s a trend that we should watch…
PA priamry in April will be the real test. PA is one of the oldest states demographically in the country.
PA has many retired union, catholic, pro-life,ethnic voters in the Lehigh Valley and coal mining regions who usually vote Democratic,but who could be categorized as ‘socially conservative’,with everything that may mean. Whom will they choose?
Hillary strikes me as John McCain light. Maybe just 50 more years of war in Iraq.
Give Barack 15 more years of dealing with national politics, and he’ll be where Hillary is now: a bit jaded but definitely wiser.